< 2 March	4 March >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though he does exist (http://www2.idrottonline.se/LivetsOrdIF-Innebandy/HerrAU/Herr/Spelartrupp2010-2011/20JohannesAhlin/), he meets the A7 criteria for speedy deletion. Favonian (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax

This article is in Swedish and vaguely outlines the biography of an intramural floorball player named Johannes Ahlin. The last paragraph reads: "In short, John Ahlin is one of the world's best fullbacks (?) in floorball, as one can see from this this Wikipedia page. One hopes that he will continue to play for Word of Life [intramural team]. I do not think many knew you had a Wikipedia page, not even you." Certainly a hoax. --Arkivarius (talk) 02:45, 3 March 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. Tone 21:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sentient PPM

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

There only appears to be one article about this product (nothing came up for me in gnews, and fairly few ghits) The article is written like an advertisement by a user who's only edits to date have been regarding this product. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please don't delete this is my first article ever written for Wikipedia so I'm still new at it. I am an IT student who has come accross this software. I noticed there was no article about it on here and felt that it deserved to be mentioned as there are many other PPM software packages with articles on Wikipedia. I found the Sentient PPM software very usefull and thought it deserved to be on here. I am only new to Wikipedia so still trying to work my head around how to write articles, most of the information I adapted from the setient software website. I will take what has been mentioned into consideration and will re-write this artice in the immediate future with a more neutral point-of-view. Thank you very much for your review of the article and please feel free to help a "newbee" out and make changes to make it more neutral.Gazza8946< —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - The "source" given in the article now is fairly minor. Seems to mostly be about the founder with a paragraph on the company. Found this, which is extensive, but I'm not sure it's a WP:RS (is it a blog, or is there some editorial control there?) Not much through other sources, lots of directory listings, not much PR. Gazza; the promotional nonsense can be edited out easy enough, but are there any other 3rd party sources you used that you can point us to? Kuru (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have made some changes to the wording of the article. If I could get some feedback as to how it reads now would be fantastic. The reason I wrote the article is I that I found other articles about various other PPM packages on wikipedia but found nothing about this one. As part of my studies I have looked on Wikipedia for PPM software to assist with projects and felt that this needed to be represented as there are many other packages which are on here and this one is not mentioned. Thank you very much for the feedback. Please keep it coming and I will aim to update it as the feedback comes in. Please remember I am new to this. Thanks.Gazza8946 —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - There are articles about all the different PPM packages linked to this matrix (Comparison of project management software. I used this while I was looking for software to use for uni. Thanks Kuru for your help, it is very very helpfull. I will see what I can find for 3rd party information.Gazza8946 —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The NZ Herlad article is primarily about Steve O'Neill with some minor coverage about Sentient. I can find no other significant coverage. There are some mentions like this, but that falls well short of what I would call significant. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As it stands, I'd have to vote delete, since no reliable, significant, or independent, secondary source coverage has been established. I've left a message at the user's talkpage, encouraging him or her to find acceptable sources so that the article might be kept. I've pointed the user in the right direction, so hopefully some sources should surface. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 14:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. Couldn't find any on www.Bing.com either. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More back-office business software. No indication that this product has ever had the kind of historical, technical, or cultural significance that would make it an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:24, 4 March 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. Tone 21:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Captivating" Corey Mason

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

Contested PROD - regional "professional" wrestler of questionable notability - possibly promotional - apparent COI on article. No significant coverage from independent third party publications - Google news search brings back no returns relevant to the individual. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Nikki♥311 21:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - These types of wrestlers are covered by WP:ENTERTAINER and not WP:ATHLETE. -- Whpq (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. De728631 (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not close to notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 17:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quickflight

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

Fails WP:BAND. No notable songs or albums, of the three albums, only one was released on a notable record label. No notable members (The only blue link member is at AFD). Sources confirm albums were released, but there's only one rs review. Lara 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see two albums there, suggesting compliance with WP:BAND criterion #5. The fact that Tunesmith Records doesn't seem to exist anymore doesn't mean it wasn't notable in its day (before the World Wide Web). Not sure about this one. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two albums meets WP:BAND #5. The online coverage in eg CCM Magazine: [1] and NME: [2] just about scrapes WP:BAND #1 (especially given that these are 28 year-old plus releases that are only being considered retrospectively) . RichardOSmith (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The release of two albums only meets BAND if they're on a major label or one of the more notable indie labels. They have three records, only one of them from a major label. Thus, it fails that criteria. Lara 02:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quickflight meets WP:BAND #5. The non-existance of a wikipedia article does not mean the label is not notable. Other artists on the Tunesmith Records label [3], [4], [5]. I didn't look all that hard for Tunesmith; let me know if I have to. Per RichardOSmith it's hard going back almost 30 years. I did not do a search in any off-line sources. Argolin (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the sources above, the band is covered in the books What about Christian rock?,[6] and Raised by wolves: the story of Christian rock & roll.[7]--Michig (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:39, 6 March 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. J04n(talk page) 03:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Biosemiotics

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

(Expired) PROD removed by anonymous IP without reason given. PROD reason wes "Ephemeral journal with only two published issues, no evidence that either one (or both together) made any impact. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." No evidence of notability has been added since article was prodded, hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion following my earlier struck-out comment. Merge to Biosemiotics (journal) (even though that one has its own deletion proposal too). There isn't much content in either article, and Google Scholar shows this journal being cited many times by other journals. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note those are two different journals by two different publishers. This is not at all uncommon for scientific publications. Compare Journal of Physiology and Physiology, for a more well known example. -Selket ^Talk 23:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Selket that merging is not appropriate here. It's like merging the bios of two different persons because they happen to have the same name. --Crusio (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I was going by the sentence in the article "The journal has been replaced by Biosemiotics", leading me to think that there was a predecessor-successor relationship. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find anything upon which that phrase is based. Same for the special "volumes" (probably "issues") that are mentioned. As far as I can see, what the original author wanted to say is that there was a development in the field towards publishing special issues and then a failed attempt to publish a journal, until finally Biosemiotics was established. Note that the latter is published by a well-respected academic publisher, whereas the publisher here, Nova, is controversial. --Crusio (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I'm seeing this journal being cited in other works, which to me indicates at least some measure of notability.—RJH (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Web of Science lists citations to 19 articles. The highest count is 7, most have just 1. The would be very far from establishing notability for the bio of a single academic, for a journal it is negligible and these low numbers of citations actually confirm the lack of impact of this short-lived journal (no mystery here why the publisher discontinued it...). --Crusio (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Scholarly journal. Fotaun (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all the sympathy that I have for the sentiments expressed in Wikipedia:Scholarly journal, it should be noted that this is just an essay, not a guideline. The current journal has published only two issues, which have been cited only rarely. They were published by a controversial publisher. I really think a clearer motivation to "keep" is needed than this essay. --Crusio (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, should I defer to your apparent expertise in the matter? Fotaun (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only if my arguments convince you :-) --Crusio (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find the low citation counts discussed so far highly unconvincing and they're the only evidence of notability we have. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed it has very low citation count for a journal, below that of notable individuals, never mind journals. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:41, 8 March 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. Tone 21:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sahrawi national football team

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

Previous AfD resulted in no consensus. The article is unreferenced and gives no evidence of notability. This has nothing to do with the team not being part of FIFA or with Western Sahara not being a de jure state, which seemed to be suggested at the previous AfD. An example of a notable non-sovereign non-FIFA team would be Catalonia national football team. Stu.W UK (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable team. Giant Snowman 13:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. No real recognition of this as a national team and more importantly only a handful of games ever played. MLA (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be a future article candidate, non-notable atm. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:28, 9 March 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 - A7 by Nyttend (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surviva

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

Article had an A7 speedy tag but it was removed by someone other than the article creator with no comment other than that it was "irrelevant" ([8]). I still say speedy delete as A7, but if reaching #124 on the UK Singles Chart constitutes a claim to notability (a claim which I am unable to verify as of the moment), my !vote defaults to regular delete as failing WP:MUSICBIO. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC) edited 20:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no record of this individual charting on the UK Singles Chart. The subject claims to record under the names of J.Surviva, J-Surviva, Surviva, and Jonno. I found a video, but nothing outside of a blog belonging to the subject. No sources are provided to support the claim of notability. Cind.amuse 22:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The A7 was removed by an admitted sock of the creator of the article.[9] Cind.amuse 23:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as a COPYVIO. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marchan-dising

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

Article created by the term's namesake. Only uses appear to be in the author's blog, personal website, and misspellings of "Merchandising". Issue here appears to be WP:NOT#BLOG RadioFan (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seriously, you could have speedied this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete as non-notable neologism, possible speedy as spam. Hairhorn (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now tagged this as a copyvio. Hairhorn (talk) 21:06, 3 March 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) 01:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to make money

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

Wikipedia is not a "How to" guide. PROD removed by author. (As background, author has previously had Make money donating deleted as a promotional article - admins can look and see the site it was promoting) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedily. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I knew it wouldn't be long before he started trying to push that site again, and he's already tried to spam links to it into this article - I suspect it won't be long before he's blocked, and we can speedy it as blatantly promotional. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly better not speedily - we can use G4 then when it comes back. Peridon (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense - I'll keep it watched and make sure it stays clean of the scam spam. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - HOWTO, its only editor is attempting to use it for spam purposes. OSborn^arf_contribs. 00:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an impossibly broad subject for an encyclopedia article. Also, all the COI/Spam problems with the current iteration. gnfnrf (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have you tried armed robbery? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hopefully an admin will close this sooner rather than later. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 20:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an obvious WP:NOTHOWTO violation. "Pepper " 21:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speedy ****ing delete, as above. Safiel (talk) 04:21, 7 March 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 Poltergeist (film series). T. Canens (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Kane

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

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

Non-notable unreferenced article about film character. No verifiable, sourced material is included in the article. Description consists only of plot elements from film trilogy and WP:OR such as "Kane is the classic villain; he possesses characteristics such as psychopathy, sadism, and insatiable greed." Sottolacqua (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Article, as Reverend Henry Kane, was deleted 17 May 2009 and recreated as Henry Kane 4 October 2010. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete: This article has exactly the same problems which led to its deletion previously. There are still no citations leading me to believe it is entirely original research (WP:OR). What's bad is I feel like the character is notable, but the lack of citations leads to a judgement of lack of notability (WP:GNG). Speed8ump (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Third recreation with no references as of yet. We currently have Reverend Henry Kane and Henry Kane. Redirect both to Poltergeist (film series) and protect the articles from further editing. Cind.amuse 18:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IT. What harm is it doing? I saw the films on TV last week so I wanted to know more. But I see that this is the third time the people who hate anything worthwhile on Wikipedia want it gone. I guess you just keep nominating away till you get your own way. So noble, so selfless to those who spend so much freetime doing work here to make this site readable. So it lacks references...well how on earth can you reference the plot of a film? It's impossible, unless someone has a copy of the novelizations of the script. Or have written in depth about these films. What is written here, can only be deduced from what is shown on the screen = thus forming the basis of the articles. Plots are not referenced so why should this be? It's simply a précis of the entire character's bio based on their film appearances! Viz how this be original research? Nothing has been made up, it's source is the Poltergeist films. Amusingly, the arguments posted here all appear reasonable but actually smell more of WP:IDL (an admin told me about this seldom used caveat when they were losing their own petty argument with me). So this article must be deleted, well why? It's not defamatory, incorrect or opinion (it's source is the films). The only thing that is missing are the mythical references (i.e. the Wikipedian yardstick that always tips the game in favor of the house). But that is a glorious fallacy that makes this site a hoot. You cannot say what you think because that would be a violation of original research but you can publish as much OR as you like if it's written somewhere else. Duh?! It's like being told you can't state you have a nose till an expert tells you, "yes you have a nose". So according to the deletionists, the Henry Kane character does not exist because he has no references too exist. But by reading the the plots in the relevant movie articles, it can be gleaned that Kane does exist!? [cue vigorous head scratching] No wonder people give up contributing to articles and move onto to yearn about what stuff they can delete. Simple. It takes no effort, no creativity and definitely no intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.136.21 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikia has not yet become hazardous for articles about fiction. Reverend Henry Kane added to Horror Film Wiki on Wikia. Can you imagine wanting to delete stuff? I think it is more likely they just move on. Move onto Wikia is my advice. Anarchangel (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination, the votes to delete, all are critically flawed. Neither nominator nor voters have checked the two articles. Atrocious behaviour by the person who redirected Reverend Henry Kane to Henry Kane, when the redirected page had extensive references added by User:MichaelQSchmidt, and the redirect target had no references at all.

It is high time WP made it impossible to redirect if you are not an admin, and made an extensive review of redirects. Anarchangel (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Henry Kane article was recreated inappropriately, following the deletion of the Reverend Henry Kane article. Rather than "Speedy Keep", articles of this nature are appropriately deleted under the G4 CSD criteria. This is the standard result for all sufficiently identical and unimproved articles of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, regardless of the name of the article. Regarding Reverend Henry Kane, naming guidelines do not support prefix titles of this nature, but rather call for a redirect to the precise name. Let's say we had two articles, one named Reverend Henry Kane and the other named Henry Kane. If the first article contained more content, we would actually merge the content to the Henry Kane article with less content. We would then redirect the Reverend Henry Kane article to the second. The initial redirect to Poltergeist (film series) was made by an administrator in accordance with policy and the outcome of the AFD discussion. A second (misguided) redirect was made by a new inexperienced editor. This redirect was quickly identified by a bot, which then redirected the article to Henry Kane. So, we have an administrator redirecting in compliance with policy and based on the consensus of the community, then we have a new editor attempting in good faith to restore the article to a different name, then we have a bot redirecting to the precise, appropriate name for an article of this nature, while lacking an understanding of the community consensus to redirect to Poltergeist (film series). In the end, we have another editor revert the consensus of the community, remove the article redirection, and restore an AFD template directing to a closed AFD discussion from May 2009, that resulted in the initial redirection to Poltergeist (film series). Assuming good faith, I wouldn't define any of these actions as atrocious, but a sincere attempt to follow process as understood. Cind.amuse 01:15, 7 March 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. Tone 21:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Game panel

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

No evidence that this concept is notable. A PROD with the reason "No sources and no evidence the subject meets the general notability guideline" was removed by an IP editor with no clear explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge: A cursory search finds no publications using the term. Suggest merge into some on-line gaming page, maybe Game server. Otherwise this seems more of a dictionary entry than an independently notable concept (WP:NAD). Speed8ump (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my first thought was to merge too, but when I looked at it more closely I wasn't sure there was any content worth merging. I have searched, and failed to find any evidence that the expression is in sufficiently general use to justify its inclusion in Game server or any other article. The expression does exist, but its use is largely confined to download and promotional pages for particular examples, a few forum posts asking about them, etc. If anyone can produce suitable sources indicating that the term has enough currency to justify its inclusion in another article then a merge will be fine, but I haven't seen such sources. In any case, the content of the article is really no more than a few dictionary definitions. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was created as a promotional tool for http://gamecp.com/. Lack of significance, importance, or notability as a standalone article. Cind.amuse 22:06, 4 March 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) 20:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Cindamuse. A case of WP:ADVERT, and I couldn't find significant coverage from reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 13:56, 9 March 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 Fourth Reich. Delete and redirect; can be userfied on request. Sandstein 08:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th Reich

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

The topic does not meet the notability guidelines for future films, as filming has not begun. Based on my research, filming was scheduled to begin in April 2010. That has not happened, and based on the previous AFD, the director admitted, "The 4th Reich is infact in full swing with pre-production - a little delayed but still on track for a 2011 release." That was seven months ago. There has been no traction since toward a topic of enduring notability. The previous AFD had no good arguments to keep; one "keep" !vote said to "be lenient on the fellow his first time out" without citing policies or guidelines, and the other "keep" !vote was from the director himself, obviously with a conflict of interest. Userfication was recommended, and I'm fine with that approach; this topic just has no place in the mainspace right now. If filming does begin, and can demonstrate general notability through significant coverage, the article can be recreated. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk | contribs) 17:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, just as I opined last August. By a long shot this one in no ways meets the GNG criteria that "might" merit it as an exception to WP:NFF. I am still willing that it be userfied back to its author for continued sourcing toward a possible return. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Fourth Reich. The film should not be at this article title, it should redirect to the concept. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about a proposed film, and a different topic than what is discussed in the article on the Fourth Reich. I do not think a redirect will serve. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the film deserves an article, it would be The 4th Reich (film) (or something more specific, since I think there are other films by that name) since this should redirect to the Fourth Reich article. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I argued strongly for retaining it on the last round when the director's aide had jumped the gun in getting the WP article out of the way.
But that was all contingent on a promise that production was beginning last fall.
Can we userfy this to the author, who, if I recall correctly, is the aide editing under the director's name? Varlaam (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re Erik's observation about "the director himself". We established then that this was not the director himself, but rather this aide or assistant fellow.

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Awadh

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. The PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played pro football in Bahrain. However, according to WP:FPL, the Bahraini League is not fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:14, 8 March 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) 01:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gallegos

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

University student who has been appointed as a "student regent" (a non-voting member of the board of regents) for the university which he attends. Notable to University of North Texas students, perhaps, but not to the community at large. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At a time when Texas is facing tremendous cuts in their Higher Education formula funding, it is imperative that students, and citizens of the state of Texas have a more clear and present picture of the members appointed to serve their interests on respective university system boards. These boards are the gateway to hundreds of millions in state tax-payer dollars and transparency must be upheld. Wikipedia is a fantastic outlet for this type of transparency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untregents (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, no. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "fantastic outlet for transparency". Its intention is to present information that has already been deemed notable as evidenced by significant and widespread coverage in independent sources, not to inform a select group of people (the citizens Texas) about the board of Regents. And, it should be noted, that as a Student Member, Gallegos does not serve the interests of the citizens of Texas. Gallegos is a non-voting member. As such, it would appear that his function is to represent a voice of the students in the board's decisions, and to represent those decisions back to the student body. As noted above, this may be an important function to the students of UNT and the citizens of Texas, but not to the readers of Wikipedia as a whole. There are other venues through which this information can be rightfully disseminated, including the university's website, the UNT Board of Regents' website, etc. But not Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability, no references. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "it is imperative that students, and citizens of the state of Texas have a more clear and present picture of the members appointed to serve their interests on respective university system boards." OK - go to LinkedIn or AboutUs (or as most people do, both...). As has been pointed out above, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a means of spreading information about some minor functionary or appointee. And such persons, and even State Governors, do not dictate the contents of Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What?! I agree that this may not be the best place to disseminate state information, but basing revocation soley on the idea that this article is "not to inform a select group of people (the citizens Texas)" about a certain topic is insane. We have tons of articles on Wikipedia that only serve a small segment of the populous. I did a quick search of other regent systems and most of them have a profile. I agree with the above comment. If appointed officials are responsible for taxpayers' dollars, taxpayers should have the opportunity to have that information provided to them. What a great opportunity for Wikipedia to serve the citizens of Texas. Why would they have a non-voting member on a board if they didn't matter? These assumptions of revocation are all based on the assumption that this person is ineffective in his capacity. I respectfully disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.24.35 (talk • contribs)
- This argument has no basis in any Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BIO, no coverage to meet WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject is not notable. Fails WP:BIO. Lovetinkle (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If taxpayers' dollars paid for Wikipedia, or or it were an exclusively American institution, you might have a point. "What a great opportunity for Wikipedia to serve the citizens of Texas." No, this is an encyclopaedia, not a directory of minor functionaries and/or appointees. I suggest you check the profiles of those others see what other notability they have. If they have no more than this subject has, feel free to tag them, or bring them to our attention and we'll do it. As it is, if you are looking for free webspace to let people know who you are (as appears to be the case), follow my suggestion and try those two sites mentioned (or many others that are similar). Peridon (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No neutral sources. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close as bold redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stick It (album)

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

Article already exists at Great White (album); does not present any additional information. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 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. This one's a "hat trick". Per consensus, per CSD A7, and per CSD G12 as the first paragraph is a close paraphrase of http://www.nanobiotix.com/about-us/. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nanobiotix

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

Non-notable company. Phearson (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced; 31 employees worldwide; the "leading European venture capital firms" that allegedly funded it are all so notable as not to have Wikipedia articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above. Jared Preston (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7, No indication of importance - organisation. It falls into this CSD category as opposed to having to go through AfD because, I quote A7, it makes no credible claim of significance or importance in the article, apart from the fact that it is not sourced anyway. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 14:02, 4 March 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. Tone 21:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of knife discussion forums

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

I don't see how this list meets the notability guidelines for Lists. PROD, and Notability tags were removed. Yazan (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Yazan (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a new list, it has some sources. Editor only created it a few days ago.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List was created on Feb 26. 5 days ago. Yazan (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yeah, ok, whatever~~Thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR unless it can be shown that there are any notable knife discussion forums meriting such a list. The only two bluelinks on the page are for articles on companies, not the forums those companies supposedly maintain, and I couldn't find even any mention in those articles of the forums. Which makes this list too far attenuated from notable topics, in my judgment, to make it anything more than a web directory contra WP:NOTDIR. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question I don't keep up much on lists of things on Wikipedia, I know they exist, but that's about it. Would it make sense to keep it then, if the forums in question had their own wikipedia entries? If that's the case then I can understand deleting it. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can read here about stand-alone lists notability requirements: WP:LISTN. Yazan (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, that's what I was looking for. Did you ever make the editor who created the list aware of that?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor was notified here. Yazan (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks again.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - information has been assimilated into another article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the list items are notable. (The two bluelinks are blue because they're knife companies, not because their forums are notable.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your statement confirms to me that you know absolutely nothing about the notability of these knife discussion forums. However, I will give you a chance, so why do you feel bladeforums.com is not notable? Zabanio (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Create an article and source it. The burden is on you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are 7 print sources in the article. Three from knife-related magazines, two from knife-related books, two from books about cooking. There are others out there as well, I'm not a fan of lists on wikipedia, but could an article be written entitled "Knife-related Forums" or something similar, mentioning the forums in question and their impact on knife collecting as a hobby and even how certain forums have changed the "rules of the game" of knife collecting. For instance, some knife makers have become quite popular on forums, gaining an exposure they never would have had if they relied on the old methods of travelling to knife shows or selling at local gun shows and craft fairs? I know of several makers who were doing this the old way and when they were able to reach a wider audience via the forums, they not only received more orders, but became more like factories...hiring workers and refining production methods to meet the demand. More importantly there have been a multitude of articles the past few years pointing out this trend. There have even been articles in specialty publications telling makers and collectors how to take advantage of these forums, etc.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources provide all that context and substance for the topic, then yes, it is theoretically possible to write an article on the topic. So good luck. But while some forums may merit a mention in that hypothetical article, if sourced and relevant to a point (e.g., the first such forum, the most populous, etc.), that still wouldn't in and of itself justify a list such as this, no more than blog being notable as a concept merits a list of all blogs. postdlf (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I'm speaking about a comprehensive article just about these types of forums in general. RecDotKnives being the oldest, bladeforums being the largest with over 100K members, UsualSuspectsNetwork the largest with regard to Custom Knives and promoter of their own Knife Show, etc. I have seen articles about individual forums (bladeforumsDOTcom for example) created and deleted in the past. To say these forums are not notable when they have been written about in books and periodicals is incorrect and I don't feel each Forum rates its own article. However, a comprehensive article about the forums in general and their impact in the worlds of knife collecting and knife making sounds like a good article to me. Then again what do I know? I have never edited a Family Guy article the entire time I've been on Wiki.:)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The "notability" issue can be determined on a forum by forum basis by simply visually inspecting the aggregate number of posts at the forums. Zabanio (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of forum posts is not a recognized standard on Wikipedia for the notability of websites. See WP:WEB for website-specific inclusion standards. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there is absolutely no mention of Internet forums on the WP:WEB. If someone were to add a section about Internet forums no doubt "post count" and "number of members" would factor into notability, it is only common sense. Zabanio (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIR Yaksar (let's chat) 23:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. No indication that knife discussion forums are notable. —SW— ^comment 23:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notified members of the Wikipedia Cutlery Project of this discussion, to weigh in and offer their opinion as the list was created by a member of the Project for the project.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't seem to have any coverage of knife collecting or knife (hobby) though these support a notable industry of knife makers and dealers. There are print magazines and books, let alone online forums, and so we might best develop this into a more general article. As for specific sources, one can immediately find items like The development of controversies or Boats, Bikes, and Boxing Gloves so more time should be allowed for research and development of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is asserting that knife collecting or the knife industry in general is not notable. No one is asserting that there aren't numerous magazines and books related to knives and knife collecting. No one is asserting that online forums for knife collecting don't actually exist, but we are asserting that they are not notable. That is why there are no blue links in this article (except for the two which lead to articles on knife manufacturers, not knife discussion forums). This is a directory of purely non-notable items, which should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR. —SW— ^confabulate 17:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that this list would be more appropriate once articles on the various knife discussion forums existed, and even then, a category for such forums would initially serve the same function as a list. I suppose that this comment means I am a reluctant delete, but I prefer to leave it to others to decide. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to an article on Knife collecting and merely add this as a section at the bototm of notable websites related to the hobby. It certainly aint encyclopedic in its own right. Now a thorough article on knife collecting in general would suffice.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article has been created and the section has been added. It's a pretty good article, if I may add.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTLINK and WP:ELNO.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is publicly accessible anony IP number. Zabanio (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all lists of fora. A discussion forum is not notable with very few exceptions. MLA (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a list of forums.Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 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. Sandstein 08:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiracial American

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

There is no external documentation suggesting "multiracial American" is anything more than a terminology, which can be and is aptly covered in Multiracial#United States. The topic of Multiracial-ism is notable (which is why we have multiracial, Miscegenation, etc...), but it is not an ethnic group or a "uniform collection of people" of the United States. The only times "Multiracial American" shows up on a google search is when an individual writes about their "life" coming from a "multiracial" background (notice the quotes), or in the context of the word Multiracial American Indian. This article is already a quote farm, poorly recapitulating what most of the main articles say. The vast majority of content in this article is just scrapped from the header articles Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States and Interracial marriage in the United States, so I'm not seeing much to merge. Note that Eurasian American redirects to Eurasian (mixed ancestry), which is what this article should do. Bulldog123 14:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep I don't like the title very much either, but the general topic of mixed-race people in the United States is certainly an important one and probably WP "notable" too. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but why can't it be covered in Multiracial#United States (and the other articles) in the same way Eurasian (mixed ancestry)#United States does for Eurasian American? If you read the content, it's not different, just forked and expanded with a lot of WP:OR. Bulldog123 15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though recognizing its current flaws. To frame the discussion, complaints about the term "Multiracial American" seem to me overly caught up on form over substance; maybe the article should be titled Multiracial people in the United States, as that seems to be what the subject is, most generally stated. Given that there's not actually a claim by the nom that this isn't a valid topic, it seems that the only question that remains is whether the subtopic of multiracial people in the United States is substantive enough to merit a split off from Multiracial.
On that question, I have a hard time believing that the parent topic can handle full coverage for the entire world, particularly for a country like the U.S., where race has been such an important issue. Same goes for Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States; the topic is larger than what that can incorporate given its scope.
I agree that the quotes need to be trimmed and/or summarized, but I'm not sure what the nom claims is OR in this article, and I'm not sure whether there is anything else here other than cleanup/article talk page issues which are not AFD problems.
That it intersects with a number of other articles is not a reason for it not existing, particularly since none of those could cover this topic in full: interracial marriage in the U.S. is obviously related to multiracial people in the U.S., but a full discussion of the legal, cultural, and historical experience of the people who are the offspring and descendants of such unions (not all of which were marriages, obviously) is outside the scope of that article, just as the topic of multiracialism in the U.S. is broader than any one article on a particular race/ethnicity in the United States. postdlf (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets every requirement in WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is potentially a significant article, so it should be forked out. Many articles intersect with one another, often complimenting each other. I have the feeling that the outcomes have varied primarily on the sourceability of said article, and whether it is a content fork with a radically different point of view. I don't see how this can't be fixed in the ordinary editing process and kept fixed with a few dozen eyes on their watchlists. A move per Postdlf is in order. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - When I first saw this, my reaction was delete since the topic seemed somewhat synthetic and lacking in notability. I mean, sure there are certainly some notable multiracial Americans, but is the intersection of "multiracial" and "American" itself notable? Have a considerable number of books been written that focus solely on the subject of multiracial people in America? After considering a little more deeply, I'm a little cautious to explicitly suggest we delete the article now. If for nothing else than for the fact that have pages dedicated to Indian Americans, Russian Americans, African Americans, Chinese Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, etc, etc..... Excluding a "multiracial" category could easily be perceived as bias.... NickCT (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of notable multiracial Americans is beside the point, as this isn't a list. The article's topic is the concept, the identity itself. "Have a considerable number of books been written that focus solely on the subject of multiracial people in America"? Yes. Many books appear in the search here for "mixed race" + "United States", for example. multiracial+"United States" also produces a number of relevant hits (though more false hits, as "multiracial" is also used to mean a racially diverse group rather than an individual of racially diverse background). A lot (if not most) of the positive hits are from university presses; I'm sure if we dug into scholarly journals we'd find a lot more, as this has been a vital topic in American academics for decades. The issue has always been a relevant one because there have always been consequences for belonging to one race or another: legal at first, but even today, social and cultural, and recent history has seen the analysis and study of multiracial as itself a distinct identity. Multiracialism in the United States is a highly notable topic in American history, and a highly notable topic in contemporary sociology, race studies, media analysis, etc. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. How does multiracial#United States not cover all that? Are you going to argue that we need Eurasian American too because there are so many books on the subjects of individuals growing up with an Asian father/mother and White mother/father? Seems a bit... silly and overextensive. There are far less books on the subject than you're suggesting. I can only find two and both are about individuals in your google books link, and I can't find a single source that refers to "Multiracial" as an American ethnic group. If you are proposing a keep so vehemently, can you at least work on the talk page to get stuff like the infobox and mentions of "multiracial" as a uniform group of individuals removed? Bulldog123 20:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at that talk page discussion and it didn't really develop very far, so I'm not seeing much to respond to. I agree that multiracial is not a singular "ethnic group", obviously, at least as I would use that term, but I don't know what consequence you think that should have for the article content nor do I understand the way in which those ostensibly disagreeing with you there believed that it was an ethnic group. I might say it's a "racial classification," but beyond semantics, what's the difference? Whether it is or isn't an "ethnic group" certainly has no impact on whether the article should be deleted. The only real point I can make right now is that the topic of multiracial people in the U.S. is broader than just the census classification, so the article should not be arranged such that it appears the census classification defines it or provides a "complete count".
One broader point: this kind of article is one of the most difficult for Wikipedia to handle, for a number of reasons: 1) race is an emotionally volatile issue; 2) most Wikipedians' interests and backgrounds lean away from the humanities/social sciences; 3) racial studies have gone through a lot of change in the past few decades that it's still contentious even for university curricula, let alone volunteer editors, to determine what's essential to the subject or what defines it. There's a germ of a decent outline in the article, so there's hope. And that the article admittedly has a long way to go is by no means grounds for deletion when there's a valid, notable topic and, at minimum, a not-awful start. postdlf (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant: will you work toward fixing the article on the talk page if this article is kept? A lot of times people just come to AfD, vote !keep, and the article continues to languish in its miserable state (e.g. List of Jewish actors, List of black Golden Globe winners and Massacre). I went to the talk page to do a WP:BEFORE and got almost no responses, besides a few requests that AfD is a better venue for this than the talk page... so... clearly something is not working here... The consequences are big regarding this article's "ethnic group" status. An ethnic group is defined as: a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy. This article is currently in the Template for ethnic groups, in a category for ethnic groups (Category:Ethnic groups in the United States, and maintains an ethnic group infobox (including the idiotic montage). All these things make it seem like "multiracial american" is some type of uniform group of people. If your rename idea goes through, it would definitely help improve that. However, I'd prefer if the rename did not concern "people" but the "concept". Turns out that Multiracialism is actually a word. One of its meanings is: composed of or involving multiple races [10]. So even something like Multiracialism in the United States would be better. Still, I can't see what there is to salvage from this article. It's a huge quote farm. Bulldog123 00:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted it, and if I feel I have something to contribute to a discussion at that talk page, I will. You can feel free to ping me if you would like my input on a thread there. postdlf (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep for the more than adequate reasons offered by postdlf. This subject is part of any discussion of the evolving American society. It can be improved, as can most articles in WP, but articles just needing improvement do not get deleted. There is some other agenda going on here. Hmains (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do inform everyone of what you think that "other agenda" is. Bulldog123 05:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a hodgepodge about a purported ethnic group called "multiracial Americans". There is, in fact, no such ethnic group, which makes the very foundation of the article original research. As Bulldog suggested, Wikipedia could use an article about multiracialism in the United States, but this isn't likely to become it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep article subject, individuals who are of multiple races and american pass WP:GNG via mutliple reliable sources including major national newspapers, multiple accredited educational institutions, and a significantly notable percentage of the population of those who reside within the United States. The nature of the content of the article is debate-able and the consensus of the active editors will determine what is within the article, as well as said content following the general policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, but the primary question of an AfD is whether the subject of an article is Notable. This subject is. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with you on the last point per Wikipedia:ITSNOTABLE. But, in any case, the subject of being multiracial in America is notable. However, I don't believe that the subject of Multiracial Americans (as uniform group of people) is. If you have multiple reliable sources in major newspapers and multiple accredited education institutions showing otherwise, it would be helpful to list them here. Bulldog123 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A source such as Multiracial Americans and social class] demonstrates the notability of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is clearly an encyclopedic topic. Moreover, Stats.Grok shows it consistently receives over 500 views per day. We have articles on individual episodes of The Simpsons, such as “Mayored to the Mob”, which, though it is also encyclopedic, is of interest to far fewer readers. We don’t build the project by deleting a whole class of articles that makes some editors uncomfortable (the nom has a track record of objecting to these articles). Nor do we delete articles that have have shortcomings; we improve them. Greg L (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm in accord with the over 80% of those who have commented so far that this is a keep. Meets GNG, highly notable, encyclopedic. RightCow put it quite well. Some of the arguments in favor of deletion are reminiscent of the arguments that were debunked and rejected in the following quite recent nominations by the same nom as here (Bulldog), which all ended up keeps as well:

Not even a close call, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (possibly rename). I supported a merge on White American, but I don't think this article raises the same WP:FORK issues that one does - we don't seem to have another article that covers this specific topic (multiracial and miscegenation are international, this one is specifically about the US). 'Multiracial American' may or may not constitute a coherent ethnic group, but there's clearly a notable topic here. If the name is problematic, I'd be open to renaming it to something like Mixed-race people in the United States or something similar, but I'm not convinced that's really necessary. Robofish (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mostly just a quote farm. I don't see what parts of the article are at risk of being lost. I didn't put "Delete" in the rationale because a "merge" or "rename" could be in order. However, I don't see Mixed-race people in the United States as a verifiable topic. There are no external sources for such a "people," only for the concept of being mixed-race, which would lend itself to Multiracial#United States and possibly Multiracialism in the United States. This article isn't that though. Bulldog123 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; we gathered you’re not an admirer of the article given that you are the nom and creator of this AfD.
The article is clearly not “mostly” a “quote farm”; at least not the version as I write this post. It has proper and sufficient quotes to adequately buttress a topic that is intrinsically more controversial than most. It seems a wise move by whoever was the shepherding author, who may have perceived the need to preemptively fend off allegations of wp:synth and wp:POV (criticisms you’ve been throwing about lately on the whole, broad subject of ethnic and racial classifications).
Your arguments still don’t dissuade me from looking at this AfD any differently: it’s better to put the underweight premies in the incubator in the nursery rather than euthanize them in the maternity ward; that’s how volunteers build the project.
And, thank you for your link to Wikipedia:Quotations, which you curiously aliased as “quote farm”. Once again, I actually read your I made it BLUE so it must be TRUE-link. It doesn’t seem to support whatever impeaching point you were alleging (other than point out how the article is handling quotations properly). Please try to avoid WP:Feigning knowledge with inapplicable links. I find that to be the Wikipedia-equivalent of what engineers sometimes do in design-review meetings, where 68.656% of statistics cited by engineers are contemporaneously fabricated to feign expertise. Greg L (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:QUOTEFARM#Overusing_quotations. Yup. Real difficult to scroll down and find that. Here's a blue link for you: Go troll somewhere else. Bulldog123 15:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You aliased your link to the entire guideline: WP:Quotations. I assume that was your intention. Like I wrote above, Once again, I actually read your linked guideline, and once again, it doesn’t seem to support whatever impeaching point you were alleging.
There are only two “long” (more than a paragraph) quotes, this bit from a Supreme Court ruling and this one by Tiger Woods. Moreover, American legal rulings are not copyrighted and editors are free to use quotations of any length (and I can’t think of a more apt long quotation than one from the U.S. Supreme Court in this particular subject). Taking all quotations into consideration and ignoring the References section, the article is over 84% original content, which is hardly the “quote farms” Wikipedia has suffered from in the past.
And, true to form, you once again engaged in a personal attack by accusing an editor offering their opinion and analysis here (me) of trolling. Trolling is “disrupt[ing] the usability of Wikipedia for its editors.”. This isn’t the proper venue to elaborate in any detail, but you’ve been warned about this sort of thing before and this latest accusation is without foundation. When other editors point out something on a matter of Wikipedia business pertaining to content on the project and you disagree someone’s opinion, such as how your cited objection over “quote farm” takes the reader to the entire guideline, and that they read the guideline, and they opine that they don’t see a problem, it is not appropriate conduct on Wikipedia to falsely accuse them of disruption. M‘kay?
From hereon on this page—and everywhere else on Wikipedia where you might land—please try to keep your comments focused on the subject at hand and do not personally attack those who disagree with you. Nor should you taunt and bait them. All that sort of behavior is prohibited and is incompatible with a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, save this material for your blog and go troll somewhere else. Bulldog123 20:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is of importance because it deals with the issue that effects people who have a bi/multiracial background. It hits on kkey issues that effects how Americans self-identify or feel pressured to self-identify with certain ethnic groups. The article is encyclopedic and goes over how American society has evolved and how the dark history of the United States has influenced how people self-identify in the past and how it is changing at a rapid rate. Remove the article would harm wikipedia's diversity and seems biased.Mcelite (talk) 05:52, 11 March 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) 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Chiefs

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

This was supposed to have been bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denver Wolverines, but I neglected to do it. The rationale is the same: this is another proposed semi-pro rugby league team for which there isn't any substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources establishing notability. The only source that explicitly describes them is a blog entry that specifically says they have no firm plans to play any games or join a notable league. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a putative team that has never played a match might just about manage notability in a major sport, but given that rugby league is an incredibly minor sport in the USA, that definitely isn't the case here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 23 February 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, Cúchullain ^t/c 14:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I forgot to list this before; doing it now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A team that has yet to play any games, and has no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as G7 - only author blanked the hoax article. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 01:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Vose

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

Contested prod (by creator). Prod reason was: Hoax article. All the refs and external links lead to articles on Ryan Bowman and the article seems to have been copied from Bowman's with a few changes. As far as I can tell, Carlisle United has never had a "Thomas Vose" play for them. Would CSD, but it's technically not "blatant". Also findmypast.com revealed that there is person called Thomas Joseph Vose, but they were born in 1996. Jenks24 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the nominator pointed out, all the content of the article has been copied from Ryan Bowman. It's pretty clear that this article is a hoax. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 3 March 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. Tone 21:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian David Ellis

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

Non-notable identity, doesn't meet WP:BIO criterion Bill william compton^Talk 13:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is in fact a rather well-known figure in philosophy of nature circles. Granted, the entry needs expansion and he's not some sort of rock star, but it is clear that Dr. Ellis is notable enough to deserve an entry. JKeck (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS gives cites of 248, 97, 2, 1. Unusual but enough for a philosopher to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Ellis's writings are the standard references for the essentialist position in metaphysics. Agree with JKeck that the entry needs expansion. Elaborating (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete or merge this article, and I see no compelling policy argument that would require doing so in the absence of consensus. Any undue weight and BLP issues can be addressed by editing the article. Sandstein 08:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange

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

Undue amount of scrutiny for a currently non-notable event. Recommend deletion and move to Wikipedia:Article Incubator instead for now in case it eventually is notable. Avanu (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be more clear on what I mean by 'notable'. Yes, it has recieved a LOT of coverage in the media, but ultimately what is it we are covering in this article? A man was accused of sexual indiscretion.

How notable is that really? Is he the first well-known person to be accused of something like that?

Is there something particularly notable about how the case has proceeded thus far? Assange claimed the US was out to get him, yet there has been no evidence of that in this article.

Ultimately what we have here is a rather commonplace event (so far), and really most other people in Wikipedia don't get this much attention. This is why it is currently not truly notable, and rather than delete it all entirely, that is why I recommend above that it be put in the Wikipedia:Article Incubator. -- Avanu (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources currently in article indicate that it meets the general and event notability guidelines. -- Lear's Fool 12:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In Wikipedia, notability depends on third-party coverage, not on a philosophical concept of notability or on an ethical view of what ought to be notable. Third party coverage by reliable sources is considerable, and referenced in the article. WP:BLP aspects are relevant but unless so much material needed to be removed on BLP grounds that the remaining article lacked notability, the article should not be deleted. I see no requirement for mass removal of information. Thincat (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this event have "enduring historical significance"? (see Wikipedia:EVENT#Inclusion_criteria). Does it have "widespread (national or international) impact"? (I would say probably not, since it is simply about Assange, and if it does, why isn't that covered in the article?).

"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, 'shock' news, stories lacking lasting value such as 'water cooler stories,' and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."

What I am asking above is 'How does this truly have significance?' I understand that a lot of people assume that notability is somehow automatic after there is a bit of news coverage in big media outlets, but really that ISN'T the standard. -- Avanu (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the fact that this "event" (a strange word to use for ongoing proceedings; it's a legal process unfolding, not a car crash) centers on a notable person who is receiving significant international attention right now because of his connection to WikiLeaks. You could view the extradition proceedings as a split-off subtopic of Julian Assange if that makes it easier on you, similar to how O. J. Simpson murder case and O. J. Simpson robbery case were "split off" of O.J. Simpson. If Assange were not notable, then it's not likely his extradition would get much attention at all, from the news or Wikipedia. postdlf (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's really my point, Postdlf. Yes, this is a legal process, but really there's little actual substance here. So instead, we have this excruciating play-by-play of legal minutiae and press coverage that really doesn't have a point. The posts below who say offhandedly "This meets WP:GNG" ... I'm not sure they are seeing the point I'm asking about. I'm asking where the substance is. What makes this really worth having in Wikipedia. Sure it has gotten press, but what is the real story here, and can we focus on that instead of the pointless... and if we can't or there really isn't a story, then lets just prune the thing out. -- Avanu (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with articles of this type is that they overemphasize what is, in the long run, only one segment of a broader notable story. The extradition proceedings were brought pursuant to a criminal investigation and allegations, and so are part of that larger story, and if he is brought to trial in Sweden then that will diminish the relative importance of the extradition phase even more. All of which is to say the article should probably be renamed, and that's more of a talk page discussion than an AFD, but I think that kind of context and framing issue can affect perceptions of notability and so merited a mention here. postdlf (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with you, postdlf. -- Avanu (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me agree too despite my "keep". This would not be in my world encyclopedia until some broad conclusion was reached and then the matter would likely be a footnote. However, it seems to me that this article reaches enwiki standards of notability. Thincat (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, though I didn't frame it in terms of a !vote, I think my comment boils down to "keep at least for now, and then we'll reevaluate where it should go once this has developed some more." postdlf (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received significant international media coverage warranting an article on its own under notability guidelines. StuartH (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a major issue of international attention, and not merely because a notable person was involved Monty845 (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you say it is a "major issue", could you point out more specifically what part of it you mean? I'm looking for a description of what makes this "a major issue of international attention", in order to maybe clarify the article down the road, if it is kept. It seems as if many of the commenters feel it is sufficient to say nothing more than WP:GNG and pass on. But I would hope we all recognize the difference between something that is worth news attention and something that is encyclopedic. -- Avanu (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that he has alleged (and the allegation seems to have traction in the press) that the prosecution is politically motivated as a result of his position as the public face of wikileaks. Whether you believe the prosecution is in fact politically motivated or not, it has become part of the broader wikileaks story. If the allegation is true, then it would be a really big deal, either the US influencing Sweden, or Sweden doing it on its own. Of course like any good conspiracy theory, it would be very hard to prove or disprove, but the media is still giving it a lot of attention. Actually, it really seems more like a question of whether its appropriate material for inclusion in an encyclopedia, as to me the notability is clearly established. Let me draw an analogy to the Watergate break-in, alone it is just a burglary, hardly notable, but when placed in context, including the actors, victim, and reaction, the break-in becomes not just notable, but appropriate for inclusions in an encyclopedia. Monty845 (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I *COMPLETELY* agree and this is really the point I have been hoping others would see. Please forgive me for using the word 'notability' in a somewhat layperson's sense, instead of the strict Wikipedia definition. To me, this event really lacks enough substance to be here right now. Without the political and unproven conspiracy (or whatever term might be best), this is just another criminal investigation. If it is really being done for political reasons, then the article needs to reflect that (or just not exist). -- Avanu (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the reason people are paying attention is because they are reading between the lines, and seeing it as politically motivated, which would weigh in favor of keeping it, but how do you include that in the article while remaining encyclopedic? While your argument makes a lot of sense, I just think that in light of the extreme notability of the event as indicated by press coverage, that we should err on the side of keeping the article, at least for now. Monty845 (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although that makes sense for a tabloid or conspiracy website, we're supposed to follow a different standard. The idea of a political plot is something that is clearly biased for Mr. Assange and so I'm not sure if that would be viewed as a neutral viewpoint unless some facts came forward that lent credence to that. Having Mr. Assange or others simply assert it and we include it doesn't strike me as being the right approach. -- Avanu (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Economist, Time magazine, The BBC and about 300 other news organizations have articles on the proceedings according to Google News. They are reliable sources, not tabloids. We don't have to have a reason why they are covering the legal proceedings, but when they do that defines notability in Wikipedia. Maybe you can show some respect and withdraw your nomination at this point, and Monty845, please don't feed the trolls, they just keep come back for more, your legal editing skills are in great need and the more you reason with Monty845 the less time is spent where you are needed. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't implying that the New York Times and others are tabloids. One thing these reliable sources have covered (almost to a fault in some cases) is the timeline and how suspicious some of it seems. Like Monty845 suggested, there is a lot of reading between the lines. I'm not averse to changing my opinion, but it is with the help of editors like Monty that *we* come to consensus. Naming people 'trolls' is not. If there have been any comments of mine that seemed uncivil in the least, I apologize; there was no intent to trivialize other editors, and I would hope you might show the same sense of decorum. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why was this even put up for Afd?--BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a page about Assange and then later split it out into the legal cases vs Assange as this extradition case is a very minor episode in the overall legal story. I hope we aren't considering extradition cases themselves to be notable as it is the actual criminal case that is where the real notability lies. MLA (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's being extradited to Sweden so this article refers to an actual case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wing gundam (talk • contribs) 01:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork and a violation of WP:UNDUE with continuous WP:BLP violations. The information certainly meets WP:GNG and that's why it was included in Julian Assange and given it's due wieght. This artcle was forked from the original and greatly expanded thus giving it increased weight. A similar article was created and deleted when this event started. The Assange article has been the focus of repeated BLP problems in recent months and has only been under control after 291 people watch listed the article. This new article has less than 30 and has had repeated BLP problems as noted on the talk page including an RfC just to detemine what the article should be about. I think we should generally try to avoid another Siegenthaler incident. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 06:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, what Hydroxonium said. Not sure how this is playing out in American and Australia, but there is considerable chatter about a set-up, about reprisal, and lots of people like to link their names and faces with notorious figures and are willing to hop in bed with them. Remember the history of this sordid incident. Let's keep this in balance without WP:UNDUE weight. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with biography article. Meets WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:GNG criteria, certainly in Europe. Has contributed to make the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) more widely know to European media and public. FYI: EAW is quite recent, designed to facilitate inter-EU prosecution of criminal offenses, affects EU citizens and residents, has come into criticism because of extraditions for minor offenses, e.g. from UK to Poland. In 2004, the UK extradited 158 persons under EAW scheme, in 2008 already 615 person, now more than 1000. Assange recently tried to jump on criticism bandwagon. He is the first prominent figure to be hit by an EAW. KathaLu (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is just insufficient factual reporting to justify this article - it can be adequately covered in the Assange article, if one excludes the spin and speculation from the various involved parties. Even if this article remains, the extradition proceedings will still need to be discussed in the Assange bio. If and when the case comes to court, it can be properly reported, but for now this all seems too much like tabloid journalism, and of little lasting significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article expansion and forking off is creating a partisan editing environment with supporters of Assange attempting to protest his innocence and add all sorts of opinionated content as in the whole thing is some CIA feminist plot and undue coverage of issues as yet not even at trial. Off2riorob (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Julian Assange. Certainly a notable event, but can be covered within Mr. Assange's article. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork, I initially felt that it would be possible to re-position the article to cover the extradition which is the only part that can be sensibly reported in detail at this stage. But this was heavily resisted; instead the article is bypassing established consensus at Julian Assange over certain aspects of this event. And now there is an effort to force in highly problematic material previously soundly rejected at the JA article. It is far too soon to be writing this article. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Julian Assange. We don't normally have separate articles on every criminal conviction against a celebrity, and in this situation the subject has not yet been charged with a crime. Furthermore, this proceeding deserves to be placed in the context of Mr. Assange's other activities, which have greatly angered most of the world's governments. --agr (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [wikipedia:summary style (WP:SS), according to which sections may be spun off to own article per WP:CFORK to avoid WP:UNDUE. See Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges and Roman Polanski sexual abuse case for analogy. ^walk victor falk^talk 20:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Victor, do you feel the substantive parts of this have reached the point to necessitate a fork? -- Avanu (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets more that WP:GNG and has more content that can not all possibly be merged and there is still much more to come as the case will go on for a while. I would say that has already got at least the same attention as Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges and Roman Polanski sexual abuse case IQinn (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hardly non-notable. See HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan as another example where we had an article on a current court case without hitting serious problems, although there were concerns raised at the BLP noticeboard at one point. PatGallacher (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge (although a merging discussion would have to take place elsewhere anyway). I created the article so perhaps I can shed some light here. The coverage of this case in the media has been disproportionately large, and as a result the section on the allegations in the Julian Assange article was getting a ridiculously large an thus violating WP:DUE and WP:BLP. I don't like deleting cited factual material altogether from the encyclopaedia so I decided to create a separate article for the material so that I could delete the material from that article. This is not content forking (this refers to situations in which the same content is dealt with twice in two articles such that the two article substantially overlap) but instead a conventional application of WP:UNDUE. The existence on an article is never WP:UNDUE, only the disproportionate representation of a particular opinion or event within an article. For example, it is WP:UNDUE to include alternative fringe theories in the article for the mainstream theory, but the fringe theories still get there own articles where they are described from the NPOV of reliable sources. This is true of any verified but WP:UNDUE material. You don't simply deleted cited factual material altogether from the encyclopaedia but instead you merely delete t from the article after finding a more appropriate place for it, creating a new article if necessary. We can't delete it because it meets the notability criteria, and we can't include all the material in the Julian Assange article because that would violate WP:DUE and also we would be worse off in terms of WP:BLP. If it were to be merged, it would have to be with some "Notable European Arrest Warrant Extradition Cases" article, but the fact of the matter is that there is an extensive amount of factual material that has been reported on this case and it would simply take up too much room as a subsection of any other article. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To quote you, "the section on the allegations in the Julian Assange article was getting ridiculously large". I completely agree, and after reading this article again in its entirety, I still wonder why we *need* all of this. We don't even have a substantive reason for having it except that the media spent time covering it. The media has a different goal/motivation than an encyclopedia, but if that is what we want to strive for, so be it, I suppose. -- Avanu (talk) 06:29, 11 March 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. Tone 21:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UELSports

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

This article is about a single department of a university. There is nothing to demonstrate that it has received sufficient independent coverage for inclusion per WP:ORG. The only independent coverage concerns the use of the department by the American Olympic team in 2012, but I do not think this is sufficient for inclusion. If it was we would end up with articles about every university sports dept in the UK. SmartSE (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above, plus the article content - including with regard to the Olympics - is almost entirely reproduced in the main article for the university. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:OUTCOMES#Education "Departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field... or produced a number of notable graduates." I do not find the significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to suggest that this is an exception. JohnCD (talk) 14:47, 4 March 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. Tone 21:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kisorsa

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

There is no village called "Kisorsa" in Hungary. Anyone can check in the Detailed Gazetteer of the Republic of Hungary, 2010 − Hungarian Central Statistical Office: it does not know about it, which means it does not exist. The Gazetteer includes all localities (so an existing village with a village hall is certainly included), even all "parts of localities" (outskirts etc.). See also its talk page. (I already deleted a bulk of self-contradicting information from the article.) Antissimo (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Painstaking work has been done on this on the discussion page and the case for this being a hoax seems to have been established. There is nothing that emerges on a web search giving evidence of the existence of this place independent of this article, so it fails for sources in any case. And by the way, whilst llamas are kept in Europe there is no established market which would support large scale farming! AJHingston (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The user is known for creating hoax articles, although, I should say, well-crafted ones. --Ezhuks (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to all the arguments made on the talk page, I'd also like to point out that earlier versions of the article provide coordinates for this "village" -- apparently placing it in the middle of a field in southern Slovakia, about 40 km north of the Hungarian border. By the way, this is not the first hoax article by the original author of the article --Malatinszky (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obvious hoax. --Pagony (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A hoax with llamas and foosball. Csigabi (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to llama. Just kidding. Delete.--Oakshade (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax per above. In addition, the image appears to be a hoax and an altered version (and a copyvio) of one at this page; see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 5#File:Kisorsavillage.jpg. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 10:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which, in fact, depicts the village hall of community Halogy in Hungary (see the coat of arms in Commons:File:HUN Halogy COA.jpg) Csigabi (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no such village exists. – Alensha ^talk 17:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McTimoney College of Chiropractic

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

This is an article about a company that provides training for quacks. Four sources are cited. One is the company's own site, one is 404, one is no longer available (and was about the University of Wales validating bogus degrees, not about this company; McTimoney is not mentioned in the broadcast), one does not mention the name of this company.

It is fun to poke these fools with a stick - the Bad Science posse replaced McTimoney's picture with a rubber duck on one site, which was amusing while it lasted - but I do not really see much evidence that anybody outside of the McTimoney "association" thinks McTimoney is at all important. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've corrected the 404 link and removed the iPlayer reference - hadn't realised it was unavailable and yes it'd be better as a reference for the University of Wales article.

I've not created the article to poke fun or mock anyone, can only apologies if that's the impression I've given. I'm completely aware of the rubber duck thing. I'm not sure how the importance of McTimoney outside of the field of Chiropractic is critical - if that's a consideration here then ought to be seriously reviewing pages listed at Category:Chiropractic_schools. I think it's worth of an article since:

The MCA represents a measurable faction of Chiropractors in the UK, sizable enough to cause plenty of friction with other Chiropractors ^[1].
It's one of the few places in the UK offering science degrees in a pseudoscience.

Pishmishy (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search for <McTimoney Chiropractic> yields about a hundred results at Google Books,[11], including examples like these: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] and many more. Google Scholar also yields about 100 references.[19] Whatever one's views about chiropractic, the evidence is that this school and its associated methodology and association represent a notable branch of it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And are they primarily about this company? I doubt it. That's not to dispute that McTimoney is a notable form of quackery (even other chiropractors have spoken out against it) but that doesn't mean that this company, as covered in this thinly sourced article, is notable by association. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. McTimoney Chiropractic is regulated in the UK by the General Chiropractic Council set up by act of parliament to regulate training and professional standards. Most of the opinions stated above seem to be expressions of prejudice with no citations. Wikipedia exists to provide a repository of what is known about our world and McTimoney Chiropractic is part of that world. The article makes no claims for the efficacy of Chiropractic in general or McTimoney Chiropractic in particular, it simply reports what exists. Any attempt to deny its existence by seeking to delete this page is censorship. Chrisrustsheffield (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York Cosmos (2010)

New York Cosmos (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

This article fails both WP:V and WP:OR. No mainstream publications directly support the assertion that this club is a separate entity. This article had originally posted a "founding date" which could not be verified anywhere and which was subsequently removed. The club itself, ie the current trademark holders, acknowledge only one unified historic timeline, and no publications have disputed this. Wikipedia requires that we post only information that can be verified, not our own interpretations of facts, even if we believe them to be true. If most publications seem to accept this club as the same entity, it is the policy of Wikipedia not to create a new perspective unique to Wikipedia. Since the nature of a separate article is suspect, it's inclusion is also redundant to the first article, which should therefore cover all current material referring to the Cosmos as a club. ~~This article should be deleted.~~ unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 09:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no more issues with this article so long as a neutral point of reference is established. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 06:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I love this re-write of history that is going on. All the articles referenced on the New York Cosmos (2010) mention that the original club "folded" or "cease operations" in 1985. A club "folding" or "ceasing operations" does not exist. The Cosmos team in extistence today is not the same team that operated in 1985. It is a new club that purchased the name and logo of the old club.KitHutch (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI understand your position and respect it, but I think that it's important that you address how this article satisfies Wikipedia policy. It exists primarily to avoid such disagreements. You're merely stating an opinion. The idea that a "folded" or "ceased operations" club can be reformed under the same history already has precedent on this site long before the NY Cosmos came along, but that is not the topic of this discussion. Bottom line is everything on this site must be verified and it's important that you address whether or not this article satisfies WP:V. I've tried to bring this up numerous times before in discussion. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 20:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' - You haven't stated how the article fails Wikipedia policy. Even if this club is legally the same entity from the original club, if you have a reliable source for that, just add it to this article. And add a link and a small section to the article on the old Cosmos noting that as well. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was tried before, but there were certain editors who were reverting any compromise changes from being made to the article. Perhaps I took a drastic route, but it seemed the only manner in which to relay my point to a broader pool of editors. I also posted the article for Request for Comment in both the sports and business categories, but very few editors actually monitor the RFC discussions. There were no outside responses. To clarify, although they haven't chosen to comment in this particular discussion, there were editors who agreed with my general argument, so I believe that a compromise was warranted. However short of the same notice I gave to everyone involved in the original discussion, I've made no other attempts to introduce them to this particular discussion in order to avoid biased canvassing. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 06:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is verifiable, per the New York Times article currently cited, that a group named the New York Cosmos began operations in 2010. Yes, there is an issue of whether this should be a stand-alone article or rolled into the (historical) Cosmos article. However, that's a discussion on how to properly present the material that makes up this article—and whether it stays standalone or gets merged, that's a keep outcome for deletion discussion purposes. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There doesn't seem to be a definitive consensus on this. Some clubs have two seperate articles in these cases (Maidstone United F.C.) while others do not (ACF Fiorentina). My current feeling is that a bit of common sense is needed here, since the only real resemblence between the original and the new Cosmos is the brand name. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis is not entirely true. Before the issue of North American soccer clubs came to pass, there was a consensus in all sports. And it was that Wikipedia would remain neutral and allow the publications, media, and teams themselves to dictate status. If you can find an instance outside of N. American soccer where we have also deemed this in the same light, then common sense would apply. However that is not the case. It seems that what we have here is a special exemption is being made just for these specific instances outside of the norm. Wikipedia once had a standard by which these things were determined, however we are arbitrarily changing it to satisfy this specific category of teams and that's wrong in my opinion. In that instance we lose our neutrality and this reference site becomes something else entirely. Now we are creating the precendent that we can initiate a standard from Wikipedia without that standard having been initiated elsewhere which I find troubling.

Bottom line the question that has to be answered here is do we want Wikipedia to be acurrate and consistent, or a hodgepodge of different sets of rules for different sets of information. In every other section of Wikipedia, science, health, or business articles, we have a standard and stick to it bc that's the best way in which to ensure accuracy. But here we feel it's ok to accept a change in how we view a certain standard and do not even choose to revisit the other articles which set that standard to ensure uniformity. If this is the case, if this is how we want to standardize how we view such articles, then for those same purposes we need to go back and change all of the articles that rest under, not just similar, but the exact same circumstances. That goes for ACF Fiorentina, the Portland Beavers baseball club, basically any other team that we have judged for years under a certain standard that we now seem to deem it ok to change out of the blue. Otherwise we need a specific reason why this is different. Yes there are no hard-bound rules to Wiki editing, but if we don't have reasonable standards then this site becomes an unreliable mish-mash of information. There needs to be a standard, period. And if we are going to decide that this is our standard then be ready to go and change the rest of the articles for the sake of uniformity and consistency. This is why I feel so strongly about this. Am I wrong to believe that these should be things that we take into consideration when we edit here on Wikipedia? unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 02:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New York Cosmos is a page about a soccer/football team that ceased operating in 1985. It has been defunct for 25 years! New York Cosmos (2010) is about a bid to be the 20th expansion franchise in Major League Soccer and has many Wikipedia:Reliable sources to support its Wikipedia:Notability. The only thing these two organizations share is name.Cmjc80 (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a phoenix club of an old one, Wikipedia often has pages of pheonix clubs so it's nothing new to have a separate page for the revival. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I accept the technical argument, and therefore the case that has been made that on WP:V grounds that this might be a candidate for a merge. On the other hand, I believe the information is more usefully presented as two articles. Regardless of whether the holding company is the same or not, the first team was discontinued over a quarter of a century ago, as was the league they played in and all of their opponents, so there are grounds for considering 2010 as a new start. Precident exists for legal continuations on which there are otherwise grounds to split to be handled either way: New England Patriots serves as an article for the franchise both before and after the move from Boston, whereas the opposite is the case in a very similar situation with Wimbledon F.C. and Milton Keynes Dons F.C. To summarise, policy would seem to slightly favour a delete, but I think there is slightly more encyclopaedic value in two articles. —W F C— 14:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above, it's a seperate organisation (no need to merge) that meets WP:GNG (no need to delete). Giant Snowman 17:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The organization is verifiable. Even if this is really the same entity as the Cosmos team that folded 25 years ago (which I doubt, but will presume for argument's sake), it is hardly unprecedented for information about a team to be split into multiple articles when circumstances warrant (e.g., Los Angeles Dodgers and History of the Brooklyn Dodgers, or Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals). And circumstances warrant here, since the league, players, personnel and everything else about the original team are long gone, and there is no continuity other than the name and (arguably) some legal technicalities. Rlendog (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is my final point on this discussion. Notability isn't the argument. Under either argument, the name NY Cosmos is still notable. That's not being called into question. Verifiability of the information, or rather the manner in which it's being presented in this article is. I can accept the argument that keeping the timelines separate serves a functional purpose and I supported certain compromises that were proposed in the merge discussion. In the past we have split articles, but in none of those cases does the information presented in those articles contradict the information officially presented by the team itself. Nothing that's been published in any article directly contradicts the date that the Cosmos themselves recognize.

Taking the example of the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals. Despite the fact that the two articles are separated, the National's founding date is still listed as 1969, a date that it shares with the Montreal Expos yet also the officially recognized date by the club as MLB allows their clubs to determine this on their own. I ask this; had the club chosen another date, eg the founding date of the original Nationals (which MLB left on the table), would we have had the right to present another founding date on this site? With MK Dons the club willingly relinquished all trophies and claims on the original history of Wimbledon F.C.. No contradiction there. In another example, the Cleveland Browns were essentially a folded franchise for almost 4 seasons when Art Modell took the franchise to Baltimore. Had he chosen, he could have changed the name to the Ravens, yet still kept all of the requisite history of the Browns. He gave that history and the name back to the city of Cleveland and we recognized that and so did the NFL. When the Tennessee Titans moved from Houston Bud Adams chose to deny the city of Houston the history and the naming rights and kept them with his team. I would also note that we do not have separate articles for those two teams despite the similar circumstances with the Nationals/Expos situation. When the Oklahoma City Thunder left Seattle they agreed to leave the history and records in Seattle. There are separate articles, but in the infobox it makes note of the fact that the current Sonics are located in Oklahoma and shows thier timeline. However, if/when a new club is located in Seattle by the NBA, they will have claim on the official history and records, even if that event takes place 25 years from now. If such a situation comes to pass will we ignore, the Sonic's claim on that history, which will also be backed by the NBA?

But this particular article originally added a founding date of this year while willfully ignoring the club's own valid claim on the rest of it's history. So again, while it may be hold encyclopaedic value to separate the information, to present the information in such a manner that contradicts the way that it's presented in publication is not. To present our own version of this club's establishment date in direct contradiction to their official founding date cannot possibly avoid WP:OR. So if we're going to decide that this article remains, are we also deciding that we as Wikipedia editors also have to leeway to basically present the club's history on the basis on terms that we decide? There is no conflicting claim on the club's history. They own all of the trophies and all of the records. Most sports league's allow a teams ownership in such a position to lay claim to those records. On what basis can we contradict that here? We can present the fact that the club did fold, and they have not operated for 25 years. But I think that we have always drawn the line at actively contradicting the club in question. Because aren't we also supposed to be concerned with WP:NPOV? Are we arbitrators of public dispute? Is it our role to place emphasis where we decide, or do we merely reflect information from our sources as a concise reference resource? If we ignore our policy altogether without compromise, then what is the point of having them in the first place? I believe that we have a responsibility to reflect all aspects of this club's status rather than dismissing it out of hand. Unless you can present an example that sets an alternate precedent, then this article should allude to that claim even if they're kept separate. Listing the date of the relaunch can be held as accurate if you also list the club's own established timeline for neutrality purposes. This has been done before in the examples that I have laid out above. Under those circumstances I wouldn't argue that this article should be kept. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 20:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit While, the Oklahoma City Thunder agreed to leave the name and colors of the Sonics in Seattle, they did not relinquish the history and championships as the Baltimore Ravens did. But this once again re-establishes ownership prerogative in another case. Had the Browns taken 25 years to establish another team they would have still had the legitimate claim to thier titles and history. Just wanted to correct that bit of information there unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 06:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like people are preferring separate pages for the sake of clarity as there is a jarring difference between old and new. Would a separate article noting the current club claims the history of the older club suffice? --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I've ever been opposed to such a compromise, so long as the club's history and the refounding date are given equal weight in a similar manner to how it's handled in the Oklahoma City/Seattle pages. Thank you. If such a compromise can be agreed to then I rescind my nomination. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 06:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this new club wasn't actually founded when the original was, I'm hesitant to say the first founding date is equal to its "refounding." Whatever ends up being in the end result, a clear distinction needs to be made between what history the new Cosmos claim for themselves and what events transpired to create this new organization. In the end, I'm sure middle ground will be found. --Blackbox77 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing could be said about the Cleveland Browns. They are not even the same team, the franchise was essentially an expansion franchise with no history, yet they claim the original club's history by virtue of Art Modell rescinding it to a future franchise. They were out of business for four years. Had it been twenty I'm certain that we would still not be denying thier claim to that history. A case can be made that the Cosmos claim to that history is stronger than the Browns' since the original Browns are essentially the Baltimore Ravens. Noone is confused by this history. We make note of these facts yet still lend full credence to the club's official history. I'm happy with a compromise, and the circumstances of the club's history are inevitably going to be included in the article. The fact that the article is made separate from it's parent article should lend a clear enough distinction. I just want to see that a sincere effort at a real compromise is actually made this time around. Any compromise should be in line with prior precedent and eliminate any hint of bias. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 07:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens situation is completely unrelated to this issue. The city of Cleveland never lost its NFL franchise. The NFL put the Cleveland franchise on reserve and promised it would resume play once a stadium was built and Art Modell was awarded an expansion franchise in Baltimore. In the case of the Cosmos there was no promise of a return. It wasn't even a possibility until a few months ago. Their team died, their competitor teams died and their whole league died. GONE. There was no league left to keep a franchise alive. Thank you for bringing up the Washington Nationals as they are a perfect example of why these pages should remain split. The Nationals was a franchise founded in 1969 as the Montreal Expos yet they also claim a history that goes back further than their founding to 1905 and belongs to 2 other MLB franchises Minnesota Twins Texas Rangers.Washington Nationals: Since 1969 or 1905?. Similarly, the Cincinnati Reds were founded in 1882 yet claim a history dating back to 1869, part of which belongs to the Atlanta Braves. Like the Nationals and Reds, this new group claims a market heritage dating back to 1971 but New York Cosmos LLC was founded in 2010 as an effort to gain the 20th franchise in Major League Soccer. That's was this article is about! Cmjc80 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you cannot recognise a disputed claim to a history that is owned by another team. Fortunately there is no other soccer team claiming the Cosmos history since that history is precisely what they purchased. There's also the fact that their definition is undoubtedly legally correct. The idea that it was only the existence of the NFL that ensured that Cleveland kept their history is incomplete. In the end it was Art Modell's decision. It's your opinion that the existence of the league is required, but in a legal sense the Cosmos are the exact same entity. If they claim the same history, then it is only through a subjective set of prerequisites that we are setting right here on Wikipedia that can deny them that. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 03:44, 10 March 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. WP:V controls here: we can't possibly source details about a historical character to what is obviously fiction. T. Canens (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mei Zhu

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

Molding of verifiable (that Liu Chang had a Persian concubine nicknamed Mei Zhu)(Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms (十國春秋), vol. 61) with unverifiable/fictional material (citations to a novel (宋代宮闡史, History of the Palace Secrets of the Song Dynasty — which, despite its title containing "history," is clearly historical fiction rather than an actual historical work)). The verifiable parts of the content may make her notable, but I think it's a close call and that ultimately she was not notable; the current article itself is not salvageable because of its mixing of factual and fictional material, I believe. (The fictional material is not itself notable, unlike, for example, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms or the Journey to the West, in my opinion.) I will admit that it's not a clear-cut call, but I still believe the action to take is delete. (Those who are interested in discussing about this, please let me know if a translation of the Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms passage would be necessary or helpful to your opinion; if it would, I would be happy to translate it.) --Nlu (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number of sources suggests notability. We can add a note to the text of the article that it's not clear how much of the story of Mei Zhu is fact and how much is legend. Henry V has a character named "Henry V" who bears a striking resemblence to Henry V. --Selket ^Talk 23:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More info Please explain why you believe the woman is fictional or her deeds fictional. What is the evidence for and against? Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The woman was not fictional per se. Under the Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms (which is a reliable source in my opinion) she existed. However, the reliable parts of what she did ends there. The rest of the article's descriptions of her alleged deeds cites a clearly fictional work. It would be as if someone cited Gore Vidal's Burr for the truth of the matter stated about what Aaron Burr did. --Nlu (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds like things said about Catherine the Great. Let's have the translation and information about the author, please, to better assess. When in doubt, I tend to retain, but I'd like to get it right. If the information is large, can you set it up as a subpage? Thanks for the extra effort. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Let me start with the Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms, as the (again, I believe) reliable source. The source that I consider unreliable will take longer due to its more voluminous nature. But again, the diction used in the latter work clearly shows that it's a fictional work; it was not written in a historical tone and was written in the same style as historical fiction, not as history. (No, I don't know how to describe it, per se; as has been said, I know pornography when I see it, and this is the equivalent thereof; not only that, but the work also used completely anachronistic terms at times, further showing that it was fiction, not history. In addition, its chapters are labeled hui (回), clearly signifying the author's intent to designate it as a historical novel (whose genre is often known as Zhanghui Xiaoshuo (章回小說, literally, "novel that is divided into chapters") versus the actual serious historical works, whose chapters would be labeled juan (卷, literally, "scroll"); in the translations here, I am using "volume" for both, but it is clear that the context is completely different.) --Nlu (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - As it turned out, I erred slightly; the two fictional source citations are to two fictional sources, not one (I made the mistake because neither citation gave a source name); still, that does not make the citations more reliable; it makes them less, in my opinion. The second source below (which was simply titled "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms" (五代十國), which was the name of the historical era) was clearly historical fiction as well, bearing the same signatures in diction and labeling its chapters as hui. --Nlu (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It should be noted also that the "Mei Zhu" being 媚珠 ("beautiful pearl") rather than 媚豬 ("beautiful pig") assertion came from Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms; the historical source Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms referred to her as 媚豬, not 媚珠. --Nlu (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - In addition, one of the links used [20] is a blog that does quote from what appears to be a somewhat more serious source (The Full Records of the Secrets of the Chinese Emperors' Private Lives in Their Palaces) — but which expanded on the Mei Zhu origins without any real indication of truth or fiction. I'll translate it below as well. (It should be noted that it is clear that the fourth source plagiarized from the second source without acknowledgment; the second source was written during "Republican times" (as the cover indicated), which suggests that it was written in first half of 20th century; the fourth source appears to be a recent work.)
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mei Zhu/SGCQ (Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms translation, done)
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mei Zhu/SDGCS (History of the Palace Secrets of the Song Dynasty translation, done)
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mei Zhu/WDSG (Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms translation, done)
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mei Zhu/ZGDWHGSSHZMQJL (Full Records of the Secrets of the Chinese Emperors' Private Lives in Their Palaces translation, done)
      - I forgot to translate one paragraph in this final source, which was not per se Mei Zhu-related, but was mentioned in the article; I am adding it now. (This paragraph may make the least sense of all: how does someone "win" or "lose" in sexual intercourse?) --Nlu (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: the use of these completely unreliable sources — indeed, sources that spout complete nonsense — in forming the article makes the article completely not credible and not encyclopedic. Once these unreliable sources are excised, I believe that she is no longer sufficiently notable to warrant an article of her own, but it is, I admit, a close call. (Frankly, if I were the colleague or advisor of one of the other authors who apparently did rely on these unreliable sources that are clear extrapolations rather than historical expansions of the historical account and which bordered on pornography, I would be completely ashamed. But of course, while I did consider it, I did not try to go into academia in history. Maybe after retirement I would.) --Nlu (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonetheless, you've done a wonderful job. In the 4th article, I wonder if 'fat' and 'black' could be translated as voluptuous and dark? Great job, Nlu. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "fat" in this case appeared to be intended to be semi-derogatory in diction, so that's why I used "fat." As far as "black" is concerned, I use "black" when the character 黑 is used, where I would use "dark" when 暗 is used. Thanks for the compliment. --Nlu (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with your notes or Redirect Mei Zhu to a new article titled something like 'Mei Zhu (legend)' that includes the original article with your polished translations in separate sections. Normally I'd be concerned about opinion and POV, but here you've carefully made arguments toward both sides, and I think along with the title, it would let the reader choose what to think once given all the facts. (Just the way I like it!) In other words, I propose you (1) create a new article Mei Zhu (legend) with your notes and translations augmenting the original story, and then (2) redirect Mei Zhu to your new article. Would that address all issues? Respectfully, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that a "legends" article is clearly undue; it's so trashy as to be beyond reason even for a "legends" article. Further, again, none of these works was a significant work of literature, unlike the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, as an example — or even some of the lesser works such as Fengshen Yanyi or Legend of the Bearded Guest (虯髯客傳). --Nlu (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But let me clarify again; her status as a favored concubine of an emperor may be sufficient for notability, but I still think she falls short. --Nlu (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - For example, I draw your attention to Legends of Catherine the Great, which strikes me as having parallels. National Geographic, I believe, featured a story about her life and laid out rumours about her sex life in great detail, but explained that many stories were probably concocted by her enemies. I'm a minor student of Roman history which is rife with such rumours. Take, for example, Valeria Messalina, who like Mei Zhu has multiple sources of varying degree from Tacitus to graffiti. I conclude that not only is precedence available, but your efforts (a) give us valuable semi)historical information and (b) help readers decide what is true or not. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, but Mei Zhu was not Catherine the Great. Had she been a female sovereign, or even the wife of a sovereign, I might agree, but she's a concubine whose real name was not known and whose imperial consort rank, if any, was not even recorded in history. I don't see the situation as analogous. --Nlu (talk) 00:21, 6 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Museum of Broken Memories

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

Fails WP:N, there's one source from JayIsGames on the game, but as I've argued previously on User:DustFormsWords talk page, I do not think it holds up to WP:IRS: "JayIsGames is a blog - I'm sure it's the major news source for people interested in casual games, but popularity alone does not mean it's a reliable source. It's certainly NOT a mainstream news source - it's still a blog, albeit a high-traffic one. It's run by a man without any education in journalism or publishing, and I would guess the majority of the reviewers likewise lack any formal education in journalism. We also know nothing of their editorial policies. Do we have any well-established reliable sources covering them in detail? Not that I can find." Filibusti (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Five minutes of searching found several reviews covering this game by reliable sources. I must strongly recommend that Filibusti actually involve himself with the developers in a communal way as opposed to jumping the gun to attempt to delete articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to these reviews from RS's. I can't find any. Also, please stop trying to make this a matter of me, the discussion is on whether the article is notable or not. Filibusti (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant reliable sources/reviews to indicate notability of this game. Goodvac (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Five minutes of searching. At the very least, the article should be implemented into the parent article Jonas Kyratzes. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment First 2 are from JustAdventures, which I don't know if it is a WP:RS or not. Third has no content. Fourth is about the developer, not the game. Fifth has not content, just lists system specs. Ravendrop 09:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just Adventure is indeed an RS; see here: WP:VG/RS. And while the remaining three are not directly demonstrating notability, it demonstrates that deletion is not the answer in this case, and that there may me more coverage if we were to dig deeper. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Ravendrop. I just edit conflicted with you, so I'll just post what I was going to say just in case it hasn't already been said.
    None of those sources are even remotely reliable. Source 1 and Source 2 are absolutely unreliable because the website's "About Us" page states, "If you would like to have your independently developed games listed here, please email." This site in effect lists any and every game they are emailed. Source 3 is not even a significant review; it's just a listing. Source 4 is merely a passing mention. Source 5 is another listing—no review. Goodvac (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - - "If you would like to have your independently developed games listed here, please email" shows us their policy for being contacted; you wrote "This site in effect lists any and every game they are emailed." but in fact we have no indication whatsoever about their policy for inclusion. Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you would like to argue that JustAdventure is not reliable, please take it up with the people who declared it as such. The About Us page does not say that any independently developed video game will be included; it merely explains to independent developers that they can contact them if they want to submit their video game for inclusion. Finally, do you presume to argue that the inclusion of a video game on their web site is accompanied by a review and an interview with its developer? I do not see anything in the About Us page that suggests that for even a moment. To quote the Video game Sources' description of the web site: "The site and it's staff have been cited in numerous publications and have been the subject of multiple interviews by online gaming news sites with several of its members receiving prestigous awards for their work." - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - A few editors on WikiProject Video Games do not constitute a consensus in determining whether a source is reliable. WP:VG/RS is not a policy or guideline accepted by the wider Wikipedia community. Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources states, "This page reflects the consensus of the Video games Project". A WikiProject's view does not override the view of the broader Wikipedia community.
        The sources in particular are unreliable. I will not argue as to the reliability of the site as a whole. I will simply illustrate why the two JustAdventures sources you provided do not meet the caliber of WP:RS and WP:V required by Wikipedia policy.
        
        1. The first paragraph of [26]:
        Synchronicty. It's the term philosophers use to descibre coincidence and how random things almost seem to happen for a reason. Synchronicity is when you've searched everywhere for a particular book, every library and bookstore in your area has been scorued. You are all set to give up when you stumble upon a copy left behind on the very parkbench you choose to rest at. Synchronicity is when Jonas Kyratzes contacted me out of the blue about his new game, which I had not heard of. It is the same force in action that saw me offered the opportunity ot review the game shrotly after.
        This paragraph contains numerous spelling errors. To name a few, "Synchonicty", "descibre", "shrotly", "scorued", and "ot". A reliable source would have received editorial oversight to correct these errors. One or two typos does not discount an article from being reliable. But when the entire article is peppered with spelling errors, one must wonder how much editorial oversight it has received. Second, the author of the source states: "Jonas Kyratzes contacted me out of the blue about his new game, which I had not heard of". The developer of the video game's seeking publicity from an unreliable source does not establish notability.
        
        2. [27]: "It all started with an email" (from the developer). This email interview conducted by the same author as the previous debunked source certainly does not establish notability. Goodvac (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Your logic seeks to make it that much more difficult to establish reliable sources, and to denounce the "few editors" who, in an established process, felt that Just Adventure met the threshold of reliability, is to denounce a system that seeks to make articles of higher quality (if you'll note the much-higher average quality found in video game articles due to the synthesis of people finding the sources). Without consensus, what possible way can we EVER verify what sources are reliable? Are you implying that video game editors are biased toward declaring sources reliable? Are you implying that one of the driving forces behind its declaration as reliable - User:David Fuchs, an administrator and Arbitrator, who has written many featured articles and even written an essay on featuring articles - has a poor grasp of what is a reliable source? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I notice the logical fallacy appeal to authority in action here. Goodvac (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Hm. Did you notice that he is discussing actual WP policy? Although the letter of WP policy is occasionally taken far too seriously and the spirit of it is often subverted, I see that you believe in the authority of WP policy enough to quote RS and V yourself. While Just Adventure is on that page, it is a RS, as far as Wikipedians are concerned. Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I notice a lack of proper response. Great to see an editor focus on the fact that I used his status as an administrator as evidence of his know-how. Not the many articles that he increased to featured quality that he had made over the years that he has edited here, thereby proving my point that you have no valid claim against Just Adventure of being unreliable if your best argument is that a system where a few editors make a decision on the reliability of sources is not a proper system (which entails no proper system to ever verify if any sources are reliable, ever). Kudos. Would you care to explain to me a better way to determine reliability on sources outside of a lengthy case-by-case basis? Outside of a system controlled by administrators, which you would obviously disagree with since it would be implying that administrators should be the only ones with control over reliable references, how could we possibly determine reliability in sources without forming a consensus as is done on the WP:VG/RS page? Again, I must ask if you are implying if video game editors have a cabal to make unreliable sources reliable? Otherwise, why is such a system less viable than Articles for deletion? What makes this very discussion valid? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Please, your rants aren't getting you anywhere. I am no longer arguing the unreliability of JustAdventure as a whole. A case-by-case basis is the best way to go about examining the sources. Please explain how a review riddled with excessive spelling errors (thus indicating a lack of editorial oversight) and an interview personally initiated by the developer establishes notability of this game. Goodvac (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete while there's some reliable coverage, it isn't significant enough to merit inclusion. --Teancum (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Implement these sources, and see how the article looks then. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain which sources, when implemented into the article, will allow The Museum of Broken Memories to pass the notability guidelines. Goodvac (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I believe the accepted notability guideline for software is WP:NSOFT. I summarize it's criteria as whether the software is:

influential (in its field),
used as an example in teaching,
often referenced (reviews, walk-throughs, parodied, etc), or
historically significant.

The sources discussed above don't appear to establish any of these requirements. They might serve to establish the author/artist's notability, but WP:INHERIT. Speed8ump (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, those are not 'requirements', since they are not exclusive. As with all such lists, an article that meets -any- of those criteria is acceptable. Secondly nobody seems to get that the criteria for deletion is and always will be WP:DEL. Criteria for computer/video game article content, which applies mostly to the talk page, is at WP:VG/GL Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The proposal for discussion is actually focused on the lack of reliable sources, rather than secondary criteria. An article may not meet the secondary criteria, but still meet notability through the general notability guidelines. That said, the notability of software is a bit different from that of video games. You can view the current proposal and participate in the discussion here. Cind.amuse 22:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources have been shown to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the sources you believe establish notability. Goodvac (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the two sources from justadventure, and I think jayisgames is a RS in this context due to the editorial oversight. And while your arguments about justadventure have merit, it seems to also be a reliable source (if one that needs a spellcheck). Hobit (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that Jay Is Games has editorial oversight? Goodvac (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Just Adventure review and Jay is Games review carry just enough usable content IMO for an article in terms of notability, the presence of an interview also helps a little. Just Adventure is a long established specialist website, relevant to this subject. Jay is Games does have a reviews editor, regardless they are again long established in this area and their viewpoint is relevant. To discount them as reliable sources just because they don't lay their editing policies out on a platter just in case we wikicritters need everything spelling out is taking WP:RS beyond the bounds of common sense. It's an independent video game, not aircraft design or trigonometry. Someone another 20:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it another way. On the 1st of January 2008 that interview states "I'm John Bardinelli (JohnB), a freelance writer who stumbled into video game journalism about five years ago." His latest post on JiG is today: [28], he's still there. At what point is this man supposed to get a seal of approval as an expert on indie games? Who's supposed to come along and bestow that on him? There has to be a point where the site's content is reliable enough to cover its own area, within which it is a major site. This is not a BLP, this is not a technical or academic area, this is not an area where more commercial sites or printed magazines cover in anything like the same depth. Its usage does not damage WP, but refusing it as a source because it doesn't pass between some hazy goalposts denies WP content, which is another matter. Someone another 22:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If those sources are considered reliable ones, then its fine. Jay is Games started with just one guy, but added others over time. Their spelling or writing ability is not relevant in any way. You are more likely to get an honest review from sites like this, than a printed magazine that sustains itself entirely by ads from the major game companies it reviews games of. Dream Focus 01:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, dat. The IGN network also has very poor coverage of early vid games, which indicates they do not do research, because there is a relatively tiny number of early games to cover. Therefore it is also likely they are getting their information from the devs. Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I did not feel that I had the knowledge to make a comment on the game, but having looked into the references as a result of looking at the designers page. I would have to agree the deeper you look the less they seem to come from RS. If the game has sufficient novelty it might still pass the inclusion criteria for GNG and certainly the very small number of users who appear to have found the game comment favourably but there doesn't seem to be an independent expert source that supports this view so it would probably count as original research or POV.Tetron76 (talk) 19:35, 9 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Kyratzes

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jonas Kyratzes

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

Fails WP:BIO, there's one ref (JayIsGames) which is ARGUABLY an WP:RS (although I'd disagree), but it only treats his game, not him, i.e., it does not go into non-trivial detail of his person. The rest of the links go to his website or content created by him on other websites (i.e., Youtube). Filibusti (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Five minutes of searching. And a strong recommendation that the nominator, before nominating yet another indie video game developer, actually contact the editors involved with concerns related to the article instead of jumping straight to the AfD process. Not every problem is fixed with a vote. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are not reliable sources, the others do not go into non-trivial detail of Kyratzes. In fact, those mentions are all extremely trivial. Filibusti (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did you verify their reliability? Did you check the reliable sources Wikipedia page for video games, located here? Or did you merely assume that they were not reliable? The Guardian specifically included him in a showcase of independent developers; by the nature of the article, this demonstrates notability - inclusion in such an article from The Guardian, of all sources, is not trivial whatsoever. The Just Adventure interview (Just Adventure is a reliable source, just to let you know) is obviously non-trivial. Escapist Magazine, another reliable source, makes specific note of a comment that he made on video games. Uncommon for a non-notable person to be mentioned in that context. Just Adventure, again, mentions him, discussing his development style and the sort. Did you even read the links or attempt to verify their reliability? If you are going to so easily dismiss such effort, then I would not recommend that you participate in any improvement of anything related to independent video game development. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article nomination is in good faith, and the arguments for deletion are valid. However, I'd take a step back and ask whether this guy has achieved enough in his professional work to rate a mention in a technology-driven encyclopedia... yes, he has. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after implementing the sources that Retro Hippie found. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of good sources and certainly enough for notability. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per New Age. Takeo 20:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources mentioning the guy have been found. Dream Focus 01:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of his works, The Museum of Broken Memories, has also been nominated for deletion. Dream Focus 01:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I found it very surprising that this person has been getting such a strong consensus to keep. I read the article and found it difficult to see what could pass the GNG guidelines and despite the above votes I would strongly recommend that this is not worthy of an article for the following:

GNG clearly states that there should be multiple RS on the subject looking at the links in this thread there is one.
The one RS is the guardian for being part of a competition not even for winning it.
in the guardian article a claim is made that is completely unsubstantiated (there are no primary or non-RS to back this claim) and that is that he is a "polymath". Polymath would be easy to verify and for a profile of such an individual who designed games see Demis Hassabis. This would mean that the article has not undergone the fact checking required that is what is needed for a RS. Without that line it is only on the basis of notability ofthe games that could give him notability.
The video games is a high-profile area. Many games make the main news. While project video games lacks criteria for biographies this would not currently pass even if they did.
The normal criteria for an author or boardgame designer include that notable awards have been awarded for the book or games. This is lacking here.
while the wikileaks game may warrant a passing reference in a wikileaks article, this is not the first game themed on a news event. Such games for the financial crisis made the news.
The sources indicate that he was unable to charge for a game. There were over 1 million games produced for the ZX spectrum. Clearly writing a game is not enough for a profile.

While notability is not dependent upon time, I cannot see sufficient coverage to show significant note in the field nor any individual accomplishment of note. Even the primary sources seem very amateur for someone working in game design. The future may allow for notability but this clearly has not yet been managed. Tetron76 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to respond to each point.

Every single link I provided is considered a reliable source. What makes MSNBC, a hugely well-known web site, not reliable?
That is a strong mis-characterization of notability. An article need not POSITIVE coverage, merely coverage period. It wouldn't hurt his notability if he won, but it doesn't hurt it that he lost.
If you wish to discuss the deeper argument that video game web sites have poor criteria for inclusion, discuss it on WP:VG. You can't use your own POV to denounce video game web sites as viable sources.
To require that he won an award is an arbitrary criteria. What if he was called the worst developer ever by many reliable sources, but not given an award? Logically, according to the arbitrary rule of an award given to a notable individual, he is not notable.
Games made for the financial crisis were not the first games themed on a news event. Such games were made for school shootings. But there have been games made for news events before that. Is the only notable game based on a news event the first one in the history of video games?
That last point doesn't make any sense and has nothing to do with notability and everything to do with asserting that a video game developer needs to distribute their games through a publisher to possibly be notable.

As is, the problem isn't lack of reliable sources, but the perception that video game web sites cannot assert notability and that indie video game developers have extra threshold. Notability requires that a sourced be covered in multiple reliable sources in a non-trivial sense. At what point do we extend bias against video game people to say that video game people are inherently less notable than people in film? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

while the sites can provide reliable sources several of the links that you provided are already dead, ie no mention of the subject. My point that hasn't been answered by the links is what makes him notable over any other independent game designer. The only statement I saw on him rather than his game was in the guardian but since there is no evidence that he is a polymath, I would argue that this statement should be discounted.

My point about no VG project criterria is that it is then the assumption that he should meet the GNG. Now I didn't try to find all of the broken links you made but from the ones that are left, there was nothing other than the games themselves that could make him notable. For me the games don't seem exceptionally novel or innovative so he doesn't appear unique from a design perspective. This only leaves one possible criteria for notability and this is for the games themselves being so notable that he warrants an article as well as the game.

It may be that WP:CREEP has been happening for a while but this would not pass the Articles for creation standards on the current evidence.Tetron76 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not one single link that I provided is dead. Game Set Watch's WikiLeaks article is still up, both of Just Adventure's articles are still up, The Guardian's coverage of notable indie developers is still up, MSNBC's WikiLeaks article is still up, and The Escapist's use of his opinion for their article is still up. To say that even one of these links is irrelevant to the subject is a flat-out lie, or at best, an entirely misinformed statement. Wikipedia requires that we establish notability by non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. I'd love to know why fulfilling this does not make him more notable than "any" indie developer (there are likely thousands of indie video game developers that have no coverage, so it's fair to say that he is more notable simply be common sense). And am I to understand that a reliable source is not enough to verify information? By your logic, if The Guardian makes a statement on any subject that isn't one that everyone else makes, The Guardian can never be used. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Is he a polymath? Who knows - but more importantly, who cares, when calling him a polymath is acceptable for The Guardian's link? You seem to think that he has to be a visionary of independent video game development. Do you propose that we delete Uwe Boll for being an uninspired film director? And explain to me why an indie video game developer should not be notable for his works. Shigeru Miyamoto is not notable for biking, gardening, or cooking - he is notable for the video games that he makes. He could be the most bland, uninspired, and outright mediocre video game developer, and he would be as notable as he is now if he had all of this coverage. Mention on Wikipedia requires verifiable coverage of a subject, not quality of a subject. To cite WP:CREEP when you've made weird attempts to bypass policies like WP:V, and attempting to denounce sources as unreliable while clearly not actually knowing if this is true, is entirely ironic. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shigeru Miyamoto notability can be clearly evidenced with numerous awards... I was never questioning if he had done the actions claimed in the sources merely that they did not make him notable MTG with fairly loose criteria don't accept winning the world championships counts as notable.

If his actions were non-notable, then there would not be non-trivial coverage of him by reliable sources - which is far more important than whatever notability criteria you think exists. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kyratzes was prominently featured in the February issue of GEE, a glossy German gaming magazine (http://www.geemag.de/). The article misspells his last name but it has many quotations, details about his person and a photo. I have a copy of the magazine and will add it as a reference later. He was also apparently featured in an article in Journalist, a large German "media magazine" for professional journalists (http://www.journalist.de/). I don't have access to that though.IndieGamesGermany (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he was prominently featured in German RS there may well be a genuine case but he doesn't have a german wikipedia page. But having now tracked through www.google.de as well as googling all of the games there is very little on-line evidence and it is certainly more than 5 minutes searching even to find the above refernces. The first page download links have very low stats for games of notes. While the game with a wikipage may have a case for novelty reading some fo the non-RS comments the number of hits on the blogs giving major coverage are very very low. Other references on the page are coming from a person that he shares a blog - it would be better to use primary sources.

The general google profile is very weak for someone who is notable - try google images for example. There are pages which should not be anywhere in google page rank if he was well known as a designer. His games seem to lack the numbers I would expect too. Creation of a page should wait for note to be established such as through an award or major coverage I don't see why deletion should be in a different category.Tetron76 (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a German Wikipedia page is not relevant to this discussion. Google is not relevant to this discussion. We needn't look at unreliable sources to verify information, and your argument is dependent on them, while we have provided several sources that discuss him to a significant degree - with not one of them showing any degree of unreliability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we assuming bad faith? Are you accusing IndieGamesGermany of being a liar? What you are doing is attempting to put an exceedingly high criteria of doubt on the existence of this. Please provide any policy that requires that an editor must provide online documentation of existence. Again, I will ask why The Guardian suddenly has stopped being major coverage. And MSNBC. And the German gaming magazine (which, suffice it to say, does not require online evidence that the article exists). Tell the hundreds of featured articles that rely on print sources that they have to prove through online means that their print sources mention the subject article - I'm sure that they would love to explain that they needn't do so. Your argument seems to be based around trying to devalue otherwise quality sources by attempting to establish that indie developers need to have stronger references than other developers. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you appear to lack objectivity on this subject. But I have now done several hours of searching using the games and the authors name which is made easy by it being unique. If it was not for the guradian article it would be clearcut to delete. The content of the article is important more than someones name appearing and this is the point you appear to missing.

It is possible that he is on the cusp of becoming notable but at the time of the article creation there was no evidence to support this. And it is not correct to keep a page because the sources might be coming... This is not a case of "presumed" sources the only match on the games developer sites was basically a one line response to a game advert from 2001. Some sites are editable by anyone and have very little content.

I admit that I don't have experience of games recently but the downloads from sites that quote statistics don't have any of his games in the top 4000 freeware games with less than 1% of total downloads. Very few sites have profiles on him. There is little information on the games to let someone who did know the game set it apart from other games.

My comment about the german article was to do with not having details it is difficult to pass a judgement.

But I have friends with better online status in terms of u-tube hits,twitter and I am finding it difficult to find even implicit evidence that until he wins an award or a game makes a list, a respect person in the industry comments on him that he is as notable as the other people in the german game designer category.Tetron76 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just like if it weren't for the hundreds of references in Batman, the character's article would be deleted. That's faulty logic - this isn't a discussion of things that did not happen. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:11, 10 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rauxa

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

Contested PROD. This is a marketing firm with a very tenuous claim to notability. There is some claim to notability in the article, so I guess it doesn't strictly qualify for speedy deletion: in 2010 they were #179 on the list of top US advertising agencies and #35 (out of 50) on the list of top US Hispanic-American agencies, both rankings by Ad Age DataCenter (I have no idea if this is a reliable source or not). Furthermore, the company's president is listed as one of "30 direct marketers under 30" (not a list of top marketers, simply thirty marketers who are not yet 30 years old) by dmnews.com. I maintain that these claims are not sufficient to prove notability per WP:NCORP. bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —bonadea contributions talk 08:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —bonadea contributions talk 08:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Publicity related businesses need to clearly demonstrate some kind of significance beyond the ordinary. Inclusions on Top 30 lists and the like only count towards notability if the list itself is so well known outside the industry that every entry on it can also be presumed to be notable. We either have 29 more articles on similar businesses to create, or we have ... a spammer clutching at straws. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Smerdis of Tlön and the nominator make good points. The rationale that because the director may be significant (which he may or may not be) and therefore the company should be included is flawed as well per WP:ORG#1.2 or WP:ITSA. At first, I noticed what appeared to be multiple new stories about the company, even one by the New York Times, but unfortunately it appears all of them are either the regurgitated press release from a few years ago, or, as is the case with the New York Times, a passing reference. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 20:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe Advertising agency category is composed of a myriad of Agencies of varying Sizes many of which likely have even less notability, for example Doremus & Co.. In 2010 Ernst & Young listed their CEO as a semi-finalist for entrepreneur of the year http://www.ey.com.br/US/en/About-us/Entrepreneur-Of-The-Year/OrangeDesert_2010_Semifinalists and the company is continually referenced for their insight into how in Social media integrates with DM by leading marketing publications such as http://www.btobonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100201/FREE/100209975/1409 as well as their integration of social media in Hispanic communication http://www.hispanicmpr.com/resources/articles/reshaping-hispanic-marketing-through-social-media/ Seyoda (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Seyoda. Unfortunately, there are certain policies on Wikipedia which need to be upheld in matters such as these. For a subject to be notable enough on Wikipedia that it merits its own article, it must have, in addition to other things, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately, as I already said and others did above, nobody has been able to find such sources yet. In reply to your comment: (1) A subject must be notable in its own right; notability cannot be inherited - therefore just because the agency might be the bigger part of another agency which is just about notable enough, isn't by itself for inclusion. (2) This is per WP:NOTINHERITED again. Just because the CEO might be notable enough, that does not mean that the company itself is, necessarily. It might merit a mention in the article about the CEO, however (if the CEO is indeed notable). (3) Unfortunately those references you cite are do not help establish notability because they are press releases, and therefore not independent of the subject. Hope this clarifies things. You might also want to check out WP:ORG and obviously WP:N. Thanks. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 19:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay - http://www.btobonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100201/FREE/100209975/1409 and http://www.hispanicmpr.com/resources/articles/reshaping-hispanic-marketing-through-social-media/ are both marketing publications (non-pr) posts that directly highlight Rauxa's work in Social Media also the ey.com post is from Ernst & Young a very well respected audit firm, there are no PR items that are being leveraged as refs. Rauxa's contribution to PR and Hispanic Marketing has alos been covered in DM News which is another Direct Marketing publication http://www.dmnews.com/marketers-aim-for-authenticity/article/168129/ 06:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seyoda (talk • contribs)

I'm really sorry, Seyoda, but I'm afraid none of the information you kindly provided substantiates this company's notability. Something Must have had significant secondary source coverage in independent, reliable sources. I admit that I made a mistake in saying that [35] and [36] were press releases, however, all they are is advice/insight (very useful, don't get me wrong) into some marketing aspects, etc, by employees of the company (so is [37]). They don't, however, cover the company itself, and do not (not that they should) talk about the company's significance. The reason I had said that they were press releases was because I assumed by looking straight away at the authors who were employees, that they were. The point is that even if those articles were not press releases, and did cover the subject significantly, they still, unfortunately, would not prove notability because such sources have to be independent of the subject. Yes, the ey.com may well be independent etc, but I do not think merely inclusion in a list counts as significant coverage. If the company really is notable, significant references in independent, reliable, secondary sources will be around. Thanks. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 07:52, 7 March 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falesco

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

Withdrawn nomination I'm interested to see what Cullen can do this article and if the sources he's found do pan out. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 17:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable WP:WINERY WP:ADVERT with little to no available reliable resources to expand the article beyond the orphan micro-stub it has been for 3+ years. Previously prodded almost 2 years ago with the same notability concern and while the creator removed the prod, the article is still in the same sorry shape simply because there is no sources to make a worthwhile article. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 06:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not notable. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this can be developed into a reasonable article. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This winery is notable, as shown by the following news references:

Wines of the year delight the taste buds and don't cost much, Las Vegas Review-Journal, December 25, 2002 "The red wine of the year is Falesco Vitiano Rosso Umbria 2001 from the skilled winecraftsman Ricardo Cotarella who is perhaps one of the greatest winemakers..."

Wine on Steroids, Wine Enthusiast, May 1, 2006 "Cotarella has made a name for himself with Merlot-based wines such as Cantina Falesco's Merlot Pisano and the cult Lamborghini Campoleone, a Merlot blend."

Four top list if buying by brand: Falesco, Gallo, Guigal, Santa Rita offer consistent value, Washington Times, October 5, 2005 "Located in Lazio about 50 miles north of Rome Falesco is owned by one of Italy's most accomplished winemakers Riccardo Cotarella"

Falesco Vitiano 2002, Kansas City Star, October 27, 2004 "Vitiano is a remarkable bottle. It's made not far from Rome, but grown in the neighboring state of Umbria. The winemaker, Ricardo Cottarello, is a legend and a great guy, and while some of his wines are bloody expensive, Vitiano consistently represents one of the best wine values in the world."

Falesco, "Vitiano," Lazio, 2001, The Washington Times, October 30, 2002 "The 2000 rendition of this stunning value from central Italy was highly touted in these pages last year. The 2001, just showing up on store shelves, tastes just as good, if not better. Run out and buy it. I don't know a better red-wine bargain. Falesco is a 360-acre property straddling the border of the provinces of Umbria and Lazio, about 50 miles north of Rome. Owned by Riccardo Cotarella, who has led the way in revitalizing a region . . ."

To close my argument to keep, here is a book reference by wine critic Robert M. Parker:

The world's greatest wine estates: a modern perspective, by Robert M. Parker, Simon and Schuster, 2005 "The Cotarellas built a state-of-the-art winery, and their first harvest was in 1991. Going against conventional wisdom, they planted the best clones of Merlot available, and in 1993, their famed Montiano was born, a wine of extraordinary richness, concentration, structure and elegance. Their huge success allowed them to purchase the large Marciliano estate, a hillside vineyard south of Orvieto that has brought another extraordinary baby into the portfolio of Falesco wines: the Marciliano, a 100% Cabernet Sauvignon, a wine of remarkable richness and complexity."

~~Has Google broken down where the editors who argue for deleting this article live?~~ The winery is notable - improve this article by normal editing. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do note that literally tens of thousands of wine reviews are posted on the internet each year and in many cases they are just as notable as restaurant reviews from Yelp. Robert Parker's books include hundreds of separate reviews and not a single one of those hundreds of wineries are notable by mere virtue of being reviewed by Robert Parker. Being reviewed, even by a notable reviewer, doesn't impart notability any more than a notable newspaper reviewing a local hot dog vendor would imparts notability on that hot dog vendor. The key issue here is WP:SIGCOV and casual 2-3 lines mentions in articles or wine reviews/tasting note doesn't pass the WP:GNG requirement of having "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Now think about this, what type of "normal editing" for encyclopedic content can we really extract from such trivial mentions in the sources provided you above without WP:OR?

That the non-notable writer at the Las Vegas Review-Journal thinks that "Ricardo Cotarella is perhaps one of the greatest winemakers"? ~~(Great WP:POV for an WP:ADVERT or WP:WINEGUIDE entry but not necessarily useful for an encyclopedia entry.)~~
Maybe from the two lines of the 3000+ word Wine Enthusist article we can add that they make Merlot and Merlot-blends?
We can pull from the couple of lines in the Washington Times article that the ___location of the winery is about 50 miles north of Rome.
From the other Washington Times cite we can remind our readers about "The 2000 rendition of this stunning value" ~~(Is this really the kind of WP:ADVERT tidbit that Wikipedia readers comes here looking to find?)~~
From the Kansas City time "ref" we can also point our readers not to miss out on this winery because the "Vitiano is a remarkable bottle"( ~~Now what is the point of an encyclopedia article if we don't tell custome..err I mean readers, what great wines they should be drinking!)~~

~~But we would certainly be remiss if we didn't include the Robert Parker tasting note on "a wine of remarkable richness and complexity".~~

I apologize for the sarcasm but your comment about "Google breaking down" was terribly unfair. I certainly DID looked at these and other online tasting notes/wine reviews but found them lacking in WP:SIGCOV and providing any real, tangible material that would be needed to write an encyclopedic article that didn't come across as a WP:POV saturated WP:ADVERT or WP:WINEGUIDE entry. We actually need something worthwhile to work with and, I'm sorry, but asking us to write an encyclopedic entry with tasting notes about "stunning values" and "remarkable richness and complexity" just doesn't cut it. We need reliable sources that actually provide content and not sales brochure material. Keep in mind that not everything that pops up on Google is useful. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 04:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a decent amount of info in the Parker book cited above (in addition to the quote which is a small part of the coverage), enough to verify some non-advert information and I think enough to qualify the source as non-trivial coverage. There is a decent article here from a Master of Wine, about one of the founders, but talking about Falesco and its wines as well. With a MW calling Montian "the most famous red wine of Latium", it leads me to believe there should be coverage around even though it is a minor region. Unfortunately I have next to no books on Italian wine so can't examine offline sources, maybe someone else can. Camw (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Large, mostly off topic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST conversation moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Falesco#Comparison between Cristom and Falesco. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 17:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional sources that I think are reliable and help demonstrate Falesco's notability:

"Riccardo Cotarella is Italy's most sought-after consulting winemaker, a man who has brought modern thinking and technology to dozens of Italian producers, including Feudi di San Gregorio in Campania and Lamborghini Campoleone in Umbria. Worldwide, he has more than 50 winery clients. Yet the wines Cotarella and his brother Renzo (general manager at Marchesi Antinori in Tuscany) take the most pride in are their own, made under the Falesco label from grapes grown in the family's vineyards in the Umbria and Lazio regions of central Italy. If you haven't discovered Falesco, or if you think Italian vino is too tight and/or thin for your taste, give the Cotarellas' bottlings a try."

The Chronicle’s best budget brands: Falesco, San Francisco Chronicle, August 25, 2005

"Riccardo Cotarella not only makes his winning Falesco wines, he consults with more than 30 other Italian wineries....A little research on Cotarella reveals many, many awards, praise from wine writer Robert Parker Jr. as one of the most influential wine personalities in the world, and descriptions of him as a pioneer in the Italian wine industry. His expertise is in every aspect of the business from growing techniques, to technological innovations, to winemaking to marketing."

Winemaker is highlight of special dinner, Providence Journal, October 18, 2006

It is up to you, Agne, whether or not to withdraw the nomination. I say, let's keep the article and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I'm still highly skeptical on Falesco, I'm starting to think that there maybe enough sources to write an article on Riccardo Cotarella which would include a subsection on Falesco. When you trim out the POV, WP:ADVERT, sales brochure tasting notes from the source listed, the most tangible, meat on the bones material seem to relate to the winemaker rather than the winery. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 17:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun expanding the article. More to come. Cullen328 (talk) 16:21, 8 March 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) 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Sharp (baseball)

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

Potentially non-notable minor league baseball player and manager. Sure, he led a team to a championship, but I'm not 100% sure that merits an article. Alex (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could see including an article on a long-term manager or one with multiple or AA/AAA championships, but one class D championship doesn't do it. There are many James Sharps; a quick search didn't turn up any helpful sources. Ma^t_chups 14:39, 28 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the baseball section of WP:NSPORT, item 6, there is no inherent assumption of notability for minor league players and managers. The article puts forth that he most notable as the manager of a championship minor league team, however there lacks significant coverage about it although I did find this. I understand that coverage in online sources for something that happened in 1921 may be hard to come by, but ultimately, he was the manager of a minor league team that was in a league that only operated sporadically (Michigan State League). -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 4 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hyde (Kayaker)

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

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

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

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

Contested prod; fails WP:ATHLETE. St Anselm (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability; all references just state that he exists. fuzzy510 (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has accomplished several feats no other child his age has ever even attempted to accomplish. He is the defacto two-time US National Champion in Whitewater Slalom Kayaking K1, in the Cadet Class. Feats he accomplished at age 8 and age 9. His start in the competitive side of whitewater sports at age 6 and his subsequent domination in slalom, freestyle, and downriver racing has redefined how coaches in the sport disciplines look at kids and their ability to develop as top competitors. He has in fact competed at the national and international level in both the USA and Canada and is ranked 29th overall in the USA across all classes in Men's K1. Would suggest you research a bit more before summarily pursuing a delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddrokayaker (talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This kid is a nationally known and accomplished athlete. He kinda exploded on the scene about 4 or 5 years ago and has been rocketing upwards ever since. He's a crowd favorite wherever he goes and has become a household name in the paddling community, that's my two cents worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.35.13.251 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Henry meets the criteria for ATHLETE. He has competed here in Canada in the Canada Cup series in Ottawa and Ontario and medaled in 2009 with 2 Silvers in Slalom, and a Bronze in Mixed C2. As far as I know he is still the top of the class in the USA Whitewater Slalom rankings in Cadet Men's K1. This is a kid who will be competing at Olympic Trials next year in the US at 11 years old if my math is right. Definitely well known and I think whoever posted a delete notice doesn't know much about whitewater or the athletes involved and their notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpikeItOnce (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide reliable third-party sources to tell us about whitewater athlete notability, then. --Goobergunch|? 22:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment here are his current rankings for 2010: http://www.whitewaterrankings.com/profiles/?class=K1 - This ought to speak for itself, but then again, if you aren't in the sport, just simply don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpikeItOnce (talk • contribs) 22:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional delete. Article fails WP:SELFPUB point 5. The additional sources merely state that the individual exists and provide kayaking competition results without context (which are not considered reliable sources under WP:NOTNEWS). I would be willing to reconsider this !vote should reliable third-party coverage be demonstrated. --Goobergunch|? 22:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment - Sources

- The only non-self-published source in that list that really has anything more substantial than a list of standings is #16, and even that doesn't give me much more than "Henry Hyde has been competing in junior kayaking competitions since 2007, including the 2010 USA Canoe/Kayak Slalom National Championships." The speculation about 2016 is interesting, but "predicted sports team line-ups" are specifically barred under the policy against unverifiable speculation. --Goobergunch|? 17:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

#16 certainly looks self-published. St Anselm (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant "self-published" in the sense of WP:SELFPUB. Agreed that it doesn't pass WP:BLPSPS. --Goobergunch|? 17:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment - Basically the persons submitting this article for deletion have no stake in the article. None are involved in the whitewater community and have no knowledge of its workings, who the players are, or the events. So I think I have to take serious issue with the submission for deletion. I come from the competitive whitewater community, I personally know the subject of the article, and with the exception of articles written stating times and finishes, very little press coverage is ever done with whitewater paddlers. That being said, this kid is the real deal and is very well known in by every current US Olympian, and former US Olympian, including 3-time slalom world champion, Scott Shipley and 4-time freestyle world champion, Eric "EJ" Jackson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpikeItOnce (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia has a policy against original research. Personal knowledge is generally not considered sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia because there's no way for anyone else to independently verify it. Are there any print sources that I might be able to find at a library to base an article around? --Goobergunch|? 17:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~KEEP~~ - Yes there are print sources at many libraries. Do your research — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpikeItOnce (talk • contribs)
    - I was kind of hoping that you could tell me what publications (preferably with specific issues) I should be looking in. --Goobergunch|? 18:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Canoe & Kayak, Kayak Magazine, Paddler Magazine, Kayak Session, and there are numerous newspaper articles, including Vail Daily. I guess I am having a hard time understanding why newspaper accounts, ESPN, etc aren't good enough? Also confused as to why no one has attempted to ferret out the fact that because of his age, he is by far the youngest ever in National competition (US Nationals for 2010) that this wouldn't be note-worthy. He does, by virtue of his age, own several unofficial records.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SpikeItOnce (talk • contribs)
        Please "keep" only once. A vague handwave that soruces exists in these magazines is not sufficient. Specifics of which issue and page numbers or online links are needed. His results for his age may be remarkable. Provide reliable sources covering this and the article will be kept. Insisting that sources exist without providing them will not help. -- Whpq (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The applicable guidlines are WP:GNG for general notability and WP:NSPORT as an athlete. With respect to general notability, I can find no signficant coverage in reliable sources. All of the sources provided (and repeated) above are passing mentions or results listings. These do not represent the reliable sourcing needed to establish notability. With respect to notability as an athlete, there is no sport specific criteria for whitewater kayaking, but we can measure against the general guideline that the athlete needs to have competed at the highest level of his sport which simjply is not the case here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically per Whpg's argument, with which I agree. Note: I have just undone a number of edits to Wikipedia:Notability (sports), which is what led me here in the first place. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Until the category of notability in sports for a whitewater category is settled. See: Wikipedia:Notability (sports) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddrokayaker (talk • contribs) 05:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with what's been said above and even more profoundly because this is an article on a 10-year-old kid. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 05:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wouldn't the fact that he is indeed 10 years old be remarkable for the level he competes at be notable? Think about your logic here. You're saying because he's 10, it's just not notable. I find that argument weak and illogical. If anything, the fact that he competes at such a high level for one so young is indeed notable. This isn't playing soccer in the kiddie leagues, nor is it playing Little League Baseball in the Little League World Series. This is a serious endeavor in seriously dangerous situations. If you strike out in little league ball, it is simply an out. If you mess up in Class IV or Class V whitewater, your life could very well be over. There needs to further discussion on the creation of a Notability class for Whitewater Sports prior to deletion.
  - No, the fact that he's 10 years old only increases the potential for WP:BLP issues. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 06:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The claim to notability being put forward is that being 10 years old and competes at a high level. All that needs to be brought forward is significant coverage in reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps we will coming back to this guy in the future, but the article currently fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Location (talk) 05:42, 7 March 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 boldly redirected to Moises Salinas; appears to be same person. I will request revision deletion to deal with the BLP issues. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moy Salinas

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

This seems to be a non-notable subject- the only claim to notability is that he is a sex offender. E♴ (talk) 04:39, 3 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respirocyte

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

Speculation; non notable. Fails to meet any of the criteria for Science Notability:

Textbook science: Respirocytes are hypothetical; essentially science fiction
Widely cited. The current wikipedia article fails to cite any scholarly article on the real technology. Some speculatory articles are cited, but these are far from scholarly research articles. A google scholar search gets a mere 195 hits on "respirocyte", many of which are only a passing mention of the idea (and this result appears to contain a significant amount of duplicate hits)
Press and Fiction. Per the notability guidelines, if the subject has received extensive press or fiction coverage, the article should make note of the fact. It has not done so, so it's unclear whether this applies or not.
Historical interest. The first mention of respirocytes in scholarly articles seems to have been in 1996 (Respirocytes: high performance artificial nanotechnology red blood cell; RA Freitas, NanoTechnology Magazine, 1996). As such, this is not yet a technology which is old enough to qualify as historically interesting.
Popular belief. The term respirocyte is not generally known, and is likely used only with nanotechnology and/or futurist circles.

Additionally, the summary of the article is undercited and may contain original research (particularly the summary, which pulls very specific design points out of nowhere).

As such, this article should be deleted, or improved to satisfy at least one notability criterion. bd_ (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many articles on things which only exist in science fiction and/or hypothetical on Wikipedia. There are many articles on places or people that do not have many citations but do possess scientific, technical or historical value. If something must be historically interesting before it can be an article, almost all of the articles tagged as recent, current or ongoing events would not qualify. Wikipedia would never have 3.5+ million articles if we depended upon popular belief or widespread knowledge. The article is obviously a stub, and as such is expected to be under-cited -- you yourself found a third source and failed to include it in the article. I really don't think there is a solid case for deletion -- if the article hasn't been improved in a year and Wikipedia is running out of server space, then fine, but as for now keep it. TeamZissou (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentions on CNN and in a book by Ray Kurzweil, as referenced on the page, should establish sufficient notoriety. Jcobb (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search for the term "Respirocyte" returns more than 8,000 results, all of which refer to the hypothetical device described herein. That's notability. As for historical interest, fifteen years (see the note above) strikes me as strong evidence indeed that there has been sustained scientific interest in the respirocyte. --James Somers 08:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep for the reason given above. FunkyDuffy (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whole article is based on one book and one fleeting mention in a magazine article. If the book the idea comes from is notable enough to have its own entry, this should be a section in that entry. GideonF (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As 15 years in nano-technology history, is a long time, and thus is historically significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.236.2 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Science fiction in a vanishingly small niche— clear-cut failure to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(science)#Criteria

Not mentioned in textbooks, let alone "regularly"

Not widely cited, rather, very scarcely cited

No extensive press coverage

Hasn't met any of the above historically

~~Is not and has not been "believed to be true by a significant part of the general population" __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Change to no opinion: That list of criteria still seems like a good idea, even if it came from a failed guideline. The books Whpq links demonstrate some notability. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (science) is a failed notability guideline, so using that as the basis for measuring notability is simply not supportable. Furthermore, this concept has been covered in reliable sources. For example these books: [38], [39], [40]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are sufficient for notability as a speculative concept, though of course it should not be presented as well-supported by current engineering principles. The concept gets a fair few mentions in science fiction, though usually just via waving the magic technology wand to establish that The Future is Cool. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:28, 4 March 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. BigDom talk 17:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Neff (artist)

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS if substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST. ttonyb (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this artist is notable as he has been featured on numerous blogs and has recently been profiled in more mainstream Internet publications. The Google search "michael neff chalk" returns more than 15,000 results. I am a fairly inexperienced Wikipedia writer and editor and would appreciate specific constructive criticism that will help me meet criteria to keep this article from being deleted.Thecornkid (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless clearly 3rd party sourced references can be found and added. The references in the article are predominantly to Flickr and artist's statement type articles associated with the subject. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks AllyD. It looks like the articles about him that contain the most content are interviews or profiles where he has given the author a statement of some sort. Many of the blog posts briefly explain the chalk project and serve primarily to post a gallery of images (not that quantity necessarily counts toward credibility in this case, but there are a lot of these spread widely around the world: Japan, Russia, Poland, Mexico, western Europe, etc.) Are interviews not considered 3rd party? When I was researching the article I noticed that the entry on an artist named Ellis Gallagher who does something similar leaned heavily on interviews for references, but admittedly I didn't look into Wikipedia policy on this.Thecornkid (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not currently meet our notability guidelines. Until there is significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, there shouldn't be an article, particularly as it's a biography of a living person. Lara 22:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Does not have sufficient outside references. Blogs and artists own websites and Flickr uploads are not enough to establish credible encyclopedic notability...Modernist (talk) 22:38, 4 March 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) 02:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Zamora

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

I was forwarded an email request from the subject, he wishes for the article to be deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Summary_deletion.2C_salting.2C_and_courtesy_blanking states that while a person who is not well known can request for deletion, it cannot be deleted outright because there is no negative information. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a second opinion, the sources were looked at and....it was not good. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the article is well written it doesn't appear to have sufficient sources from multiple reliable sources to establish that the subject of the article passes WP:GNG. A google news search brings up a few mentions, but none of them have the subject of this article as the primary subject of the news story. Furthermore, a quick glance of what is found online does not appear to provide sufficient results for the subject of this article to pass WP:MUSICBIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with RCLC, too much data coming from a few links? I don't think it's possible. why are there online player links here? --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aside from his having requested it, it does lack enough sources to be verifiable or prove notability.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 07:00, 9 March 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. Nobody apart from the nominator supports deletion, so the "no consensus" refers to the matter whether the content should be merged to the class article or retained separately. There are no directly applicable guidelines; WP:MILUNIT is an essay. I recommend that this matter be discussed at the guideline level, not in an AfD. Sandstein 08:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USS SC-42

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

We have many articles all about individual frigates of sub-chaser classes. While it is obvious that individual capital ships (battleships, aircraft carriers, even "pocket battleships" aka battlecruisers) are inherently notable, are smaller ships which may have been made by the thousands and have not had any honors, notable historical events or notable crewmen? Obviously some smaller navy boats will be notable but I do not think notability is inherent. The articles mentioned are all essentially no more than copy-pasts of one another because as in any navy many boats of this class were, as it seems, mostly unremarkable in their own right. Would support a merge to SC-1 class or similar, but as that's a redlink I thought I'd leave it for AFD and an administrator to decide if notability exists here. HominidMachinae (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of requesting deletion?

Well, this deletion suggestion is a pretty depressing development. I just don't understand the reasoning behind it, which seems to go against the idea that Wikipedia is for everyone and is a place where anyone can contrbute what they have information on and are interested in.

As a naval history buff, I am interested in the history of U.S. Navy ships. I find that Wikipedia has good coverage of modern ships and of historical ships of the most popular wars (the Civil War and World War II), but fairly poor coverage of ships in other conflicts. For the past couple of years I have been working on getting World War I's ships better coverage. The overlooked section patrol boats that guarded the country's coasts now mostly have their own articles, all duly accepted by the Wikiships and the World War I projects. I recently began work on the submarine chasers, which Wikipedia has left essentially uncovered. My research and its expression on Wikipedia is taking a two-prong track: (1) establish the basic stub articles for each subchaser so that I can fill in the details I am finding elsehwere in an organized fashion after I organize them and (2) researching other details of the actions of the individual submarine chasers and then including them in the stubs. Over time, I will beef up many of these articles; I expect to start that part of the effort this month. So I'd like my work left alone while I do it.

In the meantime, the stubs already have value. The articles are hardly cut-and-paste efforts from a single source. Unlike many Wikipedia ship articles which are cut-and-pastes from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships and nothing more, these articles combine information in several sources and available in no one source. To some extent as stubs they will be cut-and-pastes from another because they obviously have much in common and it is a waste of time to try to find infinite ways to say the same thing over and over, but they already vary with different photographs and dates of commissioning and sale or of other fates. No one source outside of Wikipedia has this all in one place, and no one class article could provide the particular information and detail of individual ship articles. The additional research I mentioned above is going to cause them to vary from one another more and more, but there is no need to hold off on creating the stub prior to getting every bit of research done; the stub is accurate, although by definition incomplete, and will become more complete over time. Rather than suggest a need for deletion, stubs invite further contribution. I will contribute more to them soon myself as I sort out the careers of individual subchasers.

As for an "SC-1 class" article? I am already planning one, and may write it this weekend. It will cover much about the design of the class and a very general summarize of operations that will neatly compliment the individual articles - which will provide detail the class article cannot. The class and individual ships articles will be linked by the ship class template I created.

Many ships with lesser combat histories than the World War I submarine chasers are covered in Wikipedia, as are many which are more obscure. So I don't see a reason to disqualify them. Some of us are interested in the smaller watercraft that do much of the fighting in wars, and I do not think anyone should presume to judge which of them merits inclusion - especially when many modern ships and craft with trivial histories are welcomed into Wikipedia without question (not to mention Wikipedia's happy inclusion of such trivial subjects as video games, fictional spaceships, minor entertainers of passing celebrity, and characters in computer simulations).

The purpose of Wikipedia is to be a collaborative effort to get information before the world in one easy-to-use place. Maybe someone will have more information on these subchasers that they can add after the articles are created. Maybe someone will research an ancestor who served aboard one of these ships, find the relevant article, and then add information or photos. Unless Wikipedia's servers are too full, I don't see a reason to delete articles which improve Wikipedia's coverage of underreported eras and issues and make them accessible to Wikipedia users in a way specialist Web sites do not. Maybe World War I is not a popular enough era? Maybe ships with numbers instead of names are just less interesting somehow?

Instead of looking for ways to limit the detail of Wikipedia's coverage of naval affairs, we should be looking to expand it. I have taken on this part of expanding it as a solo effort. I ask for no help from anyone else, but I would like to avoid having anyone try to truncate or destroy it. Over the next few weeks or months I plan to have a decent history in Wikipedia for each of the many subchasers that fought in World War I, sourced, with photos as available. To those who say "Why bother?" I can only reply "Why not?" Doing so will only help, not harm, Wikipedia and its users. Someone might look up the subchaser their ancestor served on - and then contribute information or photos once Wikipedia lets them find out more. That's the beauty of Wikipedia; deletion will destroy that possibility.

Let's put the idea of deleting subchaser articles to rest and let them develop over time. Anyone who finds them uninteresting should simply go do something else and leave them alone - not advocate their deletion. Mdnavman (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

I should clarify that I'm not trying to limit Wikipedia, and I will be the first to thank you for your excellent contributions to our coverage of an area that is often neglected in favor of pop culture. However I am concerned that a multitude of articles on mostly-identical members of the same class would be better served by being merged into a list or into the article on the class. As it stands every article must meet notability guidelines, and as as class of ships the class is undoubtedly notable. But multiple third-party sources are unlikely to exist for every member of the class. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS PT-337 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387). I suppose I could dig up another dozen should the need arise. Haus^Talk 05:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the huge number of books on warships (including many that provide details on all ships in nation's fleets, of which Jane's Fighting Ships is but the best known, as well as many specialist works on different types of ships) all commissioned warships can be assumed to be notable. There may or may not be a case for merging the articles until they're expanded, but that shouldn't be handled through an AfD. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Keep~~ To be honest there are are many more articles on tiny hamlets of certain countries that have populations smaller than the number of men who served on this ship. Chaosdruid (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having done some searching around and looking for details I have come to the conclusion that it should be merged into a list. I also am persuaded that there are too many in this particular class to support an individual article on each, also as per EyeSerene regarding MilHist ships. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a class article now - i.e. SC-1 class submarine chaser, but with 442 SC-1 class boats completed, if it was decided to merge the detailes of the boats where we couldn't find enough data to support a stand-alone article, it would be best to merge them to a series of lists.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to class article. Could I speak up for class histories? Much of what makes vessels of this sort interesting is the operational requirement, design, cost, equipment, deployment, assessment of effectiveness, and so forth. This can then be illustrated for readers with a list of class giving builder, launch and commissioning dates, variations from the original design, operational history, fate and date, and any other information of interest. It is the totality of that which most of us find interesting, and being forced to click through to a stand-alone article which gives nothing more than this (and sometimes less) makes it much less valuable. Of course there may be enough for a spin-off article in the case of individual vessels and there is nothing to stop that as well, but it is hardly the case here. And by the way, hamlets and other geographical features are not relevant analogies! AJHingston (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, it wasn't an analogy - an analogy would have compared the two things. It was a point, there are many articles which do need deleting, such as hamlets of 30 people, and articles which need merging - yet I never see any of those up for deletion. People wanting to clean up should try looking in areas where we have 16,000 articles in one project alone, many of which are the same thing from 4 different ethnicities. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the article currently stands, merge to a parent article about the class. WP:MILUNIT (milhist's notability guideline) states that any commissioned warships are generally inherently notable but only if sufficient coverage in secondary sources exists to write a decent article. There seems to be very little information in the article that is unique to this particular ship and couldn't be covered equally well in a subsection of a general article about the class. If further information comes to light that applies only to this ship (ie the ship's service record, notable accomplishments etc) then a separate article could be created. EyeSerene^talk 09:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging might be the best thing to do, but I have no real preference one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect - Merge into article regarding the class, per reasoning of EyeSerene. If this vessel is shown to be independently notable via third party sources, then it can always be spunout, and this article can be recreated. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: commissioned warships are inherently notable, even if they are small with short and uneventful histories. There could be an argument for merging to a class article (which doesn't exist yet), but I see no need to outright delete. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lots of good points here, but Nick-D hits it on the head: there are so many compendiums of commissioned warships that you almost always have a starting point for an article. Constant trips to AfD would not be the most effective way to guide the genesis of these articles. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: give it some time to develop. —Diiscool (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's generally agreed that commissioned warships are individually notable. Every ship will have had a different service history and career, so the articles will not be identical. Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or in truth create a class article for this ship and her sisters). I agree with EyeSerene. The article does not show notability for this particular ship. That other articles (aforementioned hamlets) exist that would not pass notability either does not affect the notability of this ship under discussion here. (no doubt a Hamlet Project when questioned would point out that there are articles on tiny warships....) GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note to AJHingston above, no comparison was intended for the "keep". Chaosdruid (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is plenty to be written about most of the individual vessels, including this one, and there are too many sources to ignore. Weakopedia (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know if there is a guideline asserting the inherent notability of commissioned warships, but that seems a common-sensical standard which I would personally support. Information would be lost from deletion of this article without corresponding benefit to the Wikipedia project... Use common sense here. Carrite (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that this most recent rash of WWI navy vessels is essentially trying to reproduce http://www.subchaser.org/ The site holds about the same amount of content on individual ships as the articles being placed on WP do. I'm a quality over quantity believer but of course each to his own. Just seems like a waste of effort to reproduce something already available elsewhere. And with 400+ SC's built during WWI I guess we'll just have that many more articles with expand tags on them. Brad (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that that's pretty much my point. Not much can be said about these individually, and as per WP:N Multiple sources are generally expected, and sources are expected to provide "significant coverage." That's my concern, An entry in a book that only confirms the basic data of all ships have is akin to a catalog entry: it confirms existence but not notability. Lacking any individual coverage that explains why this particular SC is notable, it is not. All articles must meet GNG. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to one article about the class of ships. Little cookie cutter ships should not be granted some "inherent notability" and exemption from notability requirements. The fact that someone likes a particular type of thing does not mean that an encyclopedia must have articles about each exemplar. Only if a particular such vessel was the subject of significant coverage (not just routine coverage and directory listings) in multiple reliable and independent sources, should it have its own article. Edison (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just had a look at List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy#SC.2C_Submarine_Chaser (there's also a navbox) so perhaps it's as well that we are getting an idea as to whether articles are appropriate for these small ships before all the redlinks turned blue. Also for comparison these Sub chasers are about the size of a Fairmile D motor torpedo boat. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Where does it stop? How, for instance, do you determine the notability of a submarine? By how many ships she sank? The tonnage? Whether a notable officer commanded her? Whether a notable officer's son served aboard? By any of those criteria, Wahoo (fewer ships), Trigger (low tonnage), Albacore (few ships, less-known skipper), & others could all fail. That doesn't even count Dolphin or Gato, which offhand fail all these tests... Then there's Squalus, Thetis, M-1... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love ad terrorem arguments like "If they delete an article on a rowboat, next they'll delete the USS Constitution, so we must draw a line in the sand (or ocean) right here." So no, we are not presently having a deletion debate about any of the subs you mentioned, and your comments have little relevance to the present AFD. Do you wish to state a reason for keeping the present article? Edison (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the nominator already drew the line in the sand, that is everything that is not a capital ship. (This would mean all submarines, by the way, except perhaps nuclear ballistic missile subs) 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that that is where I draw the line for presumption of automatic notability. Of course there are smaller ships that are notable, but it is inconceivable that a battleship would NOT be notable. Obviously there are smaller ships that are notable, there are notable PT boats, notable frigates, notable ships of every size, but not all smaller ships would be notable. I dispute that ships over a certain size are automatically notable. No article gets a pass from GNG, which says multiple sources with significant coverage. HominidMachinae (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may dispute it, but it is the generally held opinion of WP:SHIPS members, as set out in our project scope page. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much stating that "all ships larger than xxx are notable", but that they are presumed notable if they have been commissioned by a navy. It's essentially an "innocent until proven guilty" guideline, wherein it must be proven that the article fails GNG based on significant coverage. Since US Navy ships great and small are catalogued and given significant coverage in any number of valid references (books, catalogues, the Naval Vessel Register, DANFS, and others), you'd have a hard time proving that there is insufficient coverage of this particular vessel, or probably the vast majority of them. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have I found one of the Navy's smallest commissioned "ships" - USS Betty Jane I (ID-3458)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen smaller commissioned ships, some less than 20 feet... the launch carried by an Iowa class battleship is larger than that! bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - According to WP:SHIPS, anything over 100 feet (30 m) length or 100t displacment is likely to be notable, while WP:MILHIST's criterion are that commissioned warships (which means anything a Navy operates as a commissioned vessel, be it Yamato or a water tender) is presumed to be notable if relaible sources can be found. If they can be found for each individual ship of a class, then by all means, each individual ship of a class should have its own article. That's one of the wonders of Wikipedia; we are WP:NOTPAPER and, therefore, don't have to worry about size or space constraints restricting our contents. Now, I'm not saying that each and every 30-ton PT-boat should have an article, but I don't see the need to start "assuming negative notability" on everything short of a battlecruiser, which the nominator seems to suggest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that I am in a very small minority here, I'm not going to try to push a snowball uphill any further against consensus. The proper forum for a discussion about notability guidelines is not on this page, and if there are further notability concerns then request for merger can handle them rather than the blunt instrument of an AFD. I am going to start a discussion about application of notability guidelines elsewhere, as noted above there are many things that have been assumed notable, like very small villages with less people than have served on a navy ship, that need to be discussed, but AfD is not the proper venue. No one else thinks deletion is a proper option, so between merger discussions, article expansion and the project page there are more appropriate venues. Nomination withdrawn. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you are in a minority or not, Afd works on strength of argument and policy, as determined by the closing admin. That said, I think this has drawn attention to an issue around notability of warships which needs to be addressed. We may yet discover that there are some out there that are not article-worthy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge absent substantial coverage in a reliable source, i.e. a book, tv program, etc... Presence in a directory is what I call "Navin Johnson Notability": it's no different than a listing in the phone book, and no matter how many phone books I appear in, I am not notable. Merging to the class article would be one way to handle it, but having a "batch" article that covers twenty ships at a time seems reasonable enough if there is substantial verifiable information but not enough for a real article. SDY (talk) 23:42, 9 March 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. Tone 21:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popup Chinese

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

Promotional article for non-notable podcast. The references are mostly promotional, or to minor mentions in blogs and newsletters. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertising, not notable AndrewvdBK (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Notable to anyone who speaks Chinese DLancashire (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC) — DLancashire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see the merit of the article through its usefulness. It does require some cleanup to WP:MOS and fixing references using the cite web templates. --Visik (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing is weak, I'm not sure this passes WP:GNG. —SW— ^express 00:08, 25 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I live in Beijing and most westerners I know here either listen to or have heard of this podcast. Sourcing looks weak, yes, but no reason for deletion, just improve the sources. Bienfuxia (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, in order for an article to be kept, it must be demonstrated that it is actually possible to improve the sources, rather than just saying, "improve the sources". —SW— ^chat 16:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're one to talk. "I'm not sure this passes WP:GNG". You're not even sure, let alone bothering to demonstrate it, and yet you vote delete and badger others about their vote. F me, deletionists just keep wanting to have it easier. Anarchangel (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is really that there are two kinds of English language news sources in China - Crap state-controlled ones and blogs. The blogs have higher editorial standards, are more respected, and are taken more seriously, but Wikipedia's rules mean that these are not usable as sources. City Weekend, Danwei and The Beijinger will all have made many references to the Sinica podcast, but unless they make the minor editorial decision to present their articles as part of an "online magazine," etc instead of "blog entries" it's going to be impossible to have decent articles about China on Wiki. Bienfuxia (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources increased from 4 inline at nomination to 11 inline. Ad language toned down. No longer an orphan. Wikified and internal links added. Anarchangel (talk) 08:18, 7 March 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 Davis v. Federal Election Commission. T. Canens (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Davis (industrialist)

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

I have serious questions about this individuals' notability. There is nothing about his career as an "industrialist" that meets WP:GNG beyond any reasonable doubt. His political career fails WP:POLITICIAN as a frequent losing candidate. His political party isn't notable; the link redirects to a section on this article. He was the subject of a case tried by the SCOTUS, which might make him notable, but I don't think it's enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as there seems to be an adequate number of sources on his current prospects, which make significant note of his previous runs. In the event I am overruled, consider redirecting to Davis v. Federal Election Commission and merging some of the more pertinent biographical information into a section on that page. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete based on past outcomes. I am torn on this. A redirect would also be OK. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for his role in Davis v. Federal Election Commission which is the only real claim of notability. MLA (talk) 21:16, 25 February 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) 01:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Largely unreferenced biographical information. Unnotable for his political and professional career. If being the plaintiff in the court case is his sole claim to fame, there's a 1E issue and he should be redirected to that article. Lara 22:39, 3 March 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) 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basdeo Mangru

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

Associate professor at a not-terribly-important university. Has written a few books, but they don't seem like they've had a major impact. H-index of 4 according to google scholar. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Early career academic. GS h index of 4. Too early yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, he has many hits on GoogleBooks and several on GoogleNews citing his as an expert and quoting his books. I have added 3 references to the article and there are many more out there. J04n(talk page) 22:57, 23 February 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) 01:08, 24 February 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) 01:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. In Google news archive, I find only a few trivial mentions of him and a very brief review of one of his books in the New York Daily News [41]. I don't think that's enough for WP:GNG, and I don't see the evidence of substantial scholarly impact needed to pass WP:PROF#C1. But he undoubtedly exists, has written some books, and is occasionally cited as an expert for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:35, 3 March 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) 05:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig's suggestion of a redirect, however, should be seriously considered. T. Canens (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ric deGroot

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

Not notable. The one source cited lists his name as a participant in an album, but that is all. Web searches produce mainly Wikipedia mirrors, together with a minority of other sources which are not reliable, not independent, or both, such as the web site of a band he belonged to, a forum, IMDb, YouTube, a fan site, etc. The claim to fame in the article is that he was a member of two bands without Wikipedia articles and two with completely unsourced articles. I have not been able to find any significant evidence of notability of any of those bands. A PROD was contested with an edit summary saying "meets WP:BAND # 6", but I can find no evidence to support the statement. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's been in two bands of borderline notability. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. The article may be an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, as the original author's username (Dikregrett) is a kind of an messed up anagram for the subject's name. Pburka (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This entry meets WP:BAND # 6. Strange Advance absolutely meets WP:BAND and all references meet WP:V. Quickflight released two albums referenced from Library and Archives Canada. Argolin (talk) 03:38, 23 February 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) 01:31, 24 February 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) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources not in place to confirm notability of bands that would fulfill BAND #6. Furthermore, this isn't an article. It's a micro-stub BLP, which is just a worthless risk. Benefits no one, but is open for vandalism. Lara 22:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BAND, per User:Argolin. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As a member of two notable bands, a short article is appropriate, even if it's just a stub with links to those two bands. The only slight doubt is that he may only have been a touring member of Strange Advance, and not in the band for any great length of time. A redirect to Quickflight with a mention there that he played in Strange Advance in 1985 may suffice.--Michig (talk) 10:31, 6 March 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) 05:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop Love

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination. No input on first, so thought I'd put it out there again. Album offers no reliable, no reviews, just Allmusic and Amazon listings/descpriptions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 February 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) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, only sources are directory listings. Part of a series that doesn't have an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:56, 3 March 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) 05:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Sheldon

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Last played in the indy leagues, is 28 years old and will very likely never reach the major leagues. Doesn't merit an article. Alex (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 24 February 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) 01:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:ATHLETE. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 3 March 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) 05:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thea Van Seijen (Singer)

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

No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established according to WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 09:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, Thea Van Seijen is indeed first European female artists affiliated with The Wu-Tang Clan and mentored by RZA. reference is on wiki on all the songs she has been featured on as well as being listed under Wu-tang affiliates also check out her bio on her site www.theavanseijen.com, http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8ebar_thea-van-seijen-baby-boy_music, http://wu-international.com/misc_albums/Interviews/TheaVanSeijen%20Interview.htm,

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 24 February 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) 01:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Cind. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources necessary to establish notability. Lara 22:33, 3 March 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) 05:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification

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

publication of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. WuhWuzDat 18:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is neither evident nor asserted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment COI is not a reason to delete. And you could also replace "blatant" with "honest"... --Crusio (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Honest" would have meant spelling his companies name forwards. Spelling it backwards is "blatant". WuhWuzDat 07:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, give the guy a break, he's a newbie after all. I think that the comments on his talk page show his good faith. After all, what would be simpler than creating a username that had no relation at all to the company/journals and leave all this behind him and happily continue editing with a (now undetectable) COI. Instead, he wants to change his username and retain his current history (so that his connection with this company will remain clear even after he gets a new username). I also maintain that for a newbie, his articles were really rather neutral. The journal articles were not spammy at all but gave a neutral description of the journals, all that needed to be done was format them according to WP:MOS. Even the article on Begell House was rather neutral, the only thing one might consider spammy being the long lists of journals/books in it (and that is something most newbie -and even a lot of more experienced editors- would do). --Crusio (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 24 February 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) 01:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I can find no independent sources, it's not in ISI web, and has no recorded impact factor. --Selket ^Talk 00:01, 4 March 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) 02:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal for Multiscale Computational Engineering

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

publication of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. WuhWuzDat 18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment COI is not a reason for deletion. Any other arguments/evidence? --Crusio (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability does not appear to be asserted. Impact factors quoted place the publication half way, or less than halfway, up the scale in comparison to related publications. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously: included in JCR with very decent impact factor. --Crusio (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclusion in ISI's JCR is an indication of its being a solid technical journal. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 15:27, 1 March 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) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Scholarly journal. Fotaun (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't agree with Wikipedia:Scholarly journal but this is good enough according to Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:28, 8 March 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) 02:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Begell House

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

publisher of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. WuhWuzDat 18:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Publisher of several notable journals. Article is not spammy and I have edited it to remove any POV. --Crusio (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This argument stands or falls on the proposition that the articles relating to the journals created are indeed notable; they themselves are being considered at AfD simultaneously. As I have !voted there I will not do so here.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least 2 of those journals have sizeable impact factors and at least one of them is indexed in MEDLINE, so their notability is not in doubt. --Crusio (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant, secondary source coverage of company. It therefore fails WP:ORG. It may or may not publish notable journals but the fact remains that it itself as an entity is not notable. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Eleven Begell journals were listed in the ISI Journal Citation Reports for 2009. That confirms for me that this is a legitimate publisher of scientific journals, albeit a very minor one. I've also found some Begell technical reference books cited in other better-known technical reference books. --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 28 February 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) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wuhwuzdat (I nominated it for deletion earlier). --Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 20:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orlady. Fotaun (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crusio. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orlady. We have a similar article for Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Nothing wrong with have these. The Begell House one should include a list of their more notable journals. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:10, 8 March 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) 02:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reviews in Immunology

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

publication of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. WuhWuzDat 18:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Obviously notable journal with sizeable impact factor, COI is not a reason for deletion and, besides, the article has been edited for NPOV by me earlier and as far as I can see, there is no promotional language in it. --Crusio (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm too busy to give a fair assessment or recommendation, but I'd like to float an idea: merge the journal titles to the publisher and list them either as subsections or in tabular form rather than have scattered stub length articles. I am only posting this to this one AfD discussion, but obviously the principle applies to the collection.Novangelis (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not that difficult to expand this kind of articles, as I have just done for this journal. If the individual journals are notable, then I don't think merging is warranted. --Crusio (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see encyclopedic notability. Being only half way up a long list of journals on the samr or similar topic does not do it for me. Obviously Immunology is notable, but that is not the discussion.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For every journal listed by ISI in the Journal Citation Reports, there are at least 2 or 3 that are not listed. So "being halfway up a long list" should be more like "being in the top third" or something like that. At the WikiProject Academic Journals, inclusion in the JCR is generally taken as a sure sign of notability, as it is not easy at all to get into that list to start with. --Crusio (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The listing in ISI's Journal Citation Reports, together with the 2.625 impact factor, identifies this as a solid scientific journal. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 28 February 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) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Crusio and WP:SJ.—S Marshall T/C 11:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crusio, Orlady, Marshall, and Wikipedia:Scholarly journal. Fotaun (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Impact factor sufficient to make it notable, even if it's hardly outstanding. We even have a page for Psychological Reports. As a general comment, having this information internally available in Wikipedia helps with sourcing concerns in other articles, etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:29, 8 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biosemiotics (journal)

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

publication of questionable notability, unreferenced WuhWuzDat 18:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:45, 24 February 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) 01:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is Abstracted/Indexed in: Academic OneFile, Expanded Academic, Google Scholar, OCLC, SCOPUS, Summon by Serial Solutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.160.126 (talk • contribs)

Source added. --Dr Oldekop (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep since this journal and its predecessor (which has its own deletion proposal) seem to have sufficient citations from other journals (see note from IP above). Mainstream media is unlikely to cover such journals, so it's hard to gauge notability that way. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the Web of Science, 38 articles from Biosemiotics are cited, one 4 times, three 3 times, seven 2 times, the rest just one time. That would not even be enough to establish notability for a single academic bio, let alone for an academic journal. And being listed in Google Scholar and such is no distinction, as they strive to cover everything without exception. --Crusio (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Scholarly journal. Fotaun (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find the low citation counts discussed above highly unconvincing as evidence of notability and they're the only evidence we have. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Crusio and David Eppstein. Extremely low citation count for a journal. I see that both this and the other journal in this rather new (or perhaps rather small) field are already mentioned at Biosemiotics#History, which seems to be sufficient wiki coverage for now. I'm not convinced that the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies deserves an article either, but I don't feel very deletionist today. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 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. BigDom talk 17:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering

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

publication of questionable notability, unreferenced WuhWuzDat 18:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:45, 24 February 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) 01:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Scholarly journal. Fotaun (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other Critical Reviews meet WP:NJOURNALS and I don't see what's different with this one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:36, 8 March 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) 05:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skin (Japanese band)

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

Group composed of notable Japanese musicians, but the group itself has only performed together once four years ago, never toured, never released anything, and has done nothing since. Therefore, I feel that this is a more a case of inherited notability due to individual members rather than "being composed of notable musicians"; which seems to be invoked with groups that actually release things and perform. This group barely meets criteria one of WP:BAND, and fails all others except the aforementioned notable musicians. All that being said, one performance that wasn't even in their home country, with no releases, no tour, and no set dates re: actually doing anything even when asked in repeated interviews is very much "temporary notability". It's exactly the same as say, Jimmy Page performing on tour with Paul Gilbert - it has happened, and they are notable musicians, but we don't have an entire article on the collaboration, nor should we. The prod was contested due to continued interest in the band being shown in interviews, but the context of those sources amounts to throwaway statements like "yes, we'd like to do something at some point, when we're not too busy with our other groups," in the context of larger-scale interviews, not a solid statement of intent. MSJapan (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Even you seem address that they meet point #6 as far notability goes. Not the best article, but it does pass, and does have some sources supporting it... Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems more comparable to Tapeworm (band), which was worked into a good article...Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm ok with deleting this article - they were going do something, then X Japan reformed instead. However, is there a place part of it could be merged with? I'd think it would be better as a short paragraph in another article, but I can't think of the best place to put it. Denaar (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 February 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) 01:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think they have just enough coverage to pass the notability guidelines, and also technically pass WP:BAND by being a group that is composed of notable members. Calathan (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BAND#6 - "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles". Lugnuts (talk) 07:51, 3 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeckie

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

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a virtual copy of this one:

YouTube puppet act of questionable notabilty - appears to be promotional. No significant coverage in independent sources - provided refs are either primary sources, trivial mentions, or user-submitted stories. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep: I've actually seen a ton of coverage on this puppet recently due to some videos spoofing current pop musicians. She seems to be legitimate in the puppet world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangerdude07 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC) — Rangerdude07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please Keep: I am the creator of Bleeckie. The page 'Bleeckie' has not been created for promotion's sake. I have requested that the duplicate page, Bleeckie Streetie, be deleted. That was made simply because she is sometimes known as Bleeckie Streetie, but just one page, Bleeckie, is fine. Bleeckie is a well-known puppet in the Puppet community. I have provided several pages dedicated to her, as well as two news articles. Bleeckie (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Leslie — Bleeckie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 24 February 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) 01:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs provided which satisfy notability guidelines. Edison (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have recreated Bleeckie Streetie as a #REDIRECT to Bleeckie because "she is sometimes known as Bleeckie Streetie". The two pages should live or die together. HairyWombat 01:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I wish I could've found a ref that would fit the notability guidelines, but I could not. The article in the Dallas Observer is the blog portion of that site. This article could be recreated if/when the muppet becomes more notable. Nihola (talk) 19:34, 5 March 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) 05:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Federici

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Also, I'm not sure if directing a few music videos meets any of our notability requirements. J04n(talk page) 22:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm sure it doesn't, actually. No evidence the subject passes the GNG. Article unsourced for SIX YEARS. Sheesh. Ravenswing 05:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, directing award-winning films and/or videos IS a criteria that could show notability. For example, she directed Anytime You Need A Friend which won both a won a BMI Pop Award and a ASCAP Pop Music Award. Apart from being able to confirm those awards, worth noting in searches, is that this person is ALSO a photographer...and is more easily searchable under a modified spelling of her first name.[42] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The awards normally deemed significant enough to make a film that notable involve Academy Awards, Golden Globes, Emmys and BAFTAs. Ravenswing 22:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Pardon me, but that is not exactly correct, as we look to the coverage and notability any award might have to determine if it is a "well-known and significant award or honor" for Wikipedia purposes. And there is no doubt (at least to me) that the BMI Awards and the ASCAP Awards are indeed well-known and significant awards or honors for those involved in the creation of music videos to be seen as a well-known and significant award or honors for Wikipedia purposes. My comment above was to point out these awards as significant enough for their industry to encourage a diligent search for sources that may then show notability under WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific, and if you can wrangle a consensus to back the premise that a music video winning these decidedly lesser awards is enough to make everyone associated with it notable by that fact alone, more power to you. Ravenswing 07:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments above were to point out these awards as significant enough for their industry to encourage a diligent search for sources that may then show notability under WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE... for far more than simply being a director of award-winning music videos. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.;} 17:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unless I'm mistaken, the song won the awards not the video. J04n(talk page) 17:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now someone is digging into Federici to see if her coverage in multiple reliable sources for 20 years might be used to source and expand the article... showing notability as a individual for the extended significant coverage... or as a reknowned photographer under WP:CREATIVE. Excellent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And since the article remains, as it has been for six years, unimproved beyond its original stub, it's obvious that whichever someone was digging, he found no more of a scrap of a reliable source discussing the subject in "significant detail" than existed before. Ravenswing 12:25, 3 March 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) 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced BLP. A brief search for reliable sources yields no substantial results. It seems that no one has been able to find sources for over 6 years. Fails WP:GNG. —SW— ^prattle 21:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A sometimes problem with "brief" searches. I think it is less a matter of "no one has been able to find sources" than it is a matter of no one using what is available to expand and improve the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Snottywong. Unsourced, worthless micro-stub BLP. Lara 22:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being ignored and unimproved, yes... it became worthless. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The BMI Awards and ASCAP Awards are given to songwriters and music publishers and have no direct relationship to music video directors. It's possible this person is notable as a photographer rather than a music video director ... but if so, not only would the content have to be rewritten in full, but the article would have to be under a different name, Daniela Federici. If the only way to find information about the subject of an article is to look for her under a different name in a different occupation, I don't see much point in keeping the current version. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward return of a properly written and sourced BLP. I will myself see about spending some time over the few weeks to write a completely new and different article on her under her more searchable name of "Daniela Federici". It will not be a recreation of the unsourced, one sentence, soon-to-be-deleted stub, but rather a longer, more comprehensive, and sourced BLP about her as a photographer of some note. Losing the current one-sentence stub because I do not have the time to improve it over the next few hours is no biggie. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're able to see that the deletion of a micro-stub is not the end of the world. There are many who can't understand that concept. Good luck with re-creating the article. —SW— ^prattle 16:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new article with a different focus is a better option. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:56, 4 March 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 REDIRECTED. postdlf (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of DreamWorks animation projects

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

Article has been merged with DreamWorks Animation Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If content has been merged into another article then this should be redirected to preserve the editing history for copyright attribution purposes - see WP:merge and delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 25 February 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) 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article now redirects to DreamWorks Animation as per previous discussion - really no need for AfD here. Bienfuxia (talk) 06:40, 3 March 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) 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ferguson (British actor)

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Searched googlenews and googlebooks combing his name with both 'Heartbeat' and 'Emmerdale' without success. He is not mentioned on the page Heartbeat (UK TV series) and on List of past Emmerdale characters it is revealed that he is one of two actors to play a minor character. J04n(talk page) 23:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Emmerdale has been notified of this debate.—J04n(talk page) 23:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tooga - BØRK! 19:01, 2 March 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) 01:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced BLP of a 12-year-old actor who plays minor characters in a soap opera. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. —SW— ^communicate 21:30, 3 March 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) 02:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yukon Gear & Axle

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

No indication of notability. Page appears to be advertising/spam and all references go to Yukon Gear's online shopping site. Additionally, several users (Kid Yukon, 400four, Boqle, anons) have been adding links to Yukon Gear's shopping site to locking differential, limited slip differential, Ford F-150, etc. Bdc101 (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam campaign for non-notable business. Dismas|^(talk) 01:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there is one article about the company at [43], it fails scrutiny since No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization and certainly I don't think that such media of limited interest and circulation shows this, especially since the article makes no comment on the company's notability anyway. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG by all appearances. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 19:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spam article on a company which fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. —SW— ^express 21:27, 3 March 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. Ok, I think we have had enough heel face turns to punch this one. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Methods in Ecology and Evolution

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

Article dePRODded by anonymous IP with reason "de-PROD since it isn't clear that notability hasn't been established", but without any article improvement. PROD reason was: New journal, too young to be notable yet, article creation premature. Not indexed anywhere, no third-party sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet requirements of WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not indexed by ISI. No third party citations. No objections to undeletion if that ever happens. -Atmoz (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a publication of the "British Ecological Society" established in 1913. Though the publication is new the founding organization is not. In fact, "It was the first ecological society in the world.". As such it is note worth as a scientific journal and is well within Wiki guidelines.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The society if notable without any doubt. However, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. --Crusio (talk) 10:56, 10 February 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) 00:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I closed this on the 7th of Feb as "delete" but it's been pointed out to me that this journal has accepted for indexing in ISI. Since not being indexed was one of the reasons gived why the article should be deleted, I think it's reasonable to reopen this discussion so this new information can be considered. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a new online journal, but it is peer-reviewed, it is sponsored by a venerable entity (the British Ecological Society) that publishes several other very influential journals, and its publisher is Wiley-Blackwell -- one of the biggest and best-regarded publishers of academic journals. The fact that it is now indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) is further evidence of notability. Additionally, I found several ghits on announcements about researchers who are serving on the editorial board and papers published in the journal. Examples: [44], [45], [46], [47]. --Orlady (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As there are some delete !votes, I can't just withdraw the nom I think. The one thing that clinches it for me is the ISI coverage, which should be added to the article. This result should, I hope, encourage the article creator and others to wait until notability clearly is established before creating an article. --Crusio (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now. Geez that nom was ill-timed. :-P -Atmoz (talk) 17:54, 3 March 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 Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. T. Canens (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger

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

There is already an article on the case (see here). There is no reason to merge as the content of the proposed deleted one is already on the main article. There is no functional distinction in the cases both articles talk about. Lord Roem (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is the district court case, and the other is the supreme court case. There would be different justices and possibly a different outcome. I am not sure your logic that this is the same case. There are several examples of where both court cases articles are created in Wikipedia (e.g. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896 and A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.). --MarsRover (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there, the district court decision was notable in its own right. But here, I don't see how the District Court made a major decision in the full context of the Supreme Court deciding. Lord Roem (talk) 02:33, 3 March 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) 02:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Rename - If articles are about a series of cases regarding the same issue, that issue is a single event, with the cases being extensions of said event. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but can also accept Merge/Redirect - Right now, not knowing how the SCOTUS will decide the other case, it could be possible that the SCOTUS case article may grow considerably particularly if the court rules for the states, and thus merging in right now may require a change later. At the moment, however, it could be merged but I see no issues with notability otherwise to push it that much. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. Maybe I've missed something, but all this article seems to be about is the lower court proceedings of what is now before the Supreme Court pending a decision by them, and so it should be integrated into that article and probably trimmed. Different opinions given by different courts within the same litigation are not "different cases," but rather the same case at different stages. Normally there is not a reason to maintain separate articles unless there are multiple notable court opinions, such as if the case came back to the Supreme Court multiple times, in which case it might make sense to have one article for the litigation as a whole, and separate articles going into each SCOTUS opinion in detail. I see no basis for that kind of splitting, at least at present. Particularly since here, the Supreme Court will either affirm or reverse the 9th Circuit's decision, thus making the SCOTUS opinion the operative decision regardless of the outcome; the 9th Circuit's opinion will only then be relevant to the extent the Supreme Court adopts or disagrees with its reasoning. postdlf (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this after reading the comments above. Lord Roem (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Postdlf. Keeping all the information in one article will allow interested readers to find it more easily. The SCOTUS decision will end up being the main one, any relevant details from lower court opinions can be merged. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 21:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Same case, different court doesn't mean separate articles. MLA (talk) 18:13, 4 March 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) 02:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor of Destruction

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

Questionable notability unsupported by any reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe the nominator means "third party sources", Sadads (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only source is the transformers wiki. Fails WP:GNG. —SW— ^communicate 21:19, 3 March 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 Transformers technology#Stasis lock. T. Canens (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stasis Lock

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

A non notable aspect of the Transformers franchise without reliable sources to support this article Dwanyewest (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Transformers technology#Stasis lock --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 03:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per comment above. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per comment, Sadads (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformers technology#Stasis lock. —SW— ^babble 20:10, 3 March 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 Disease#Stages. Target of the redirect may be further sorted out at RfD, if desired. T. Canens (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flareup

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

Another weak Transformers article with its notability supported by weak sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Female_Transformers#Transformers:_Timelines. Mathewignash (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above merge suggestion --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 03:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Should the Transformers: Timelines characters be covered anywhere, really? NotARealWord (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to an appropriate target. Fancruft fails WP:GNG. —SW— ^comment 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion may be to Redirect to Disease#Stages since Flare-up already does and this seems to be a likely typo.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'd !vote for either delete or redirect according to 76.66.189.59. NotARealWord (talk) 15:52, 5 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Bourihane

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

No indication of notability, only source is some kind of kids sports team website, subject was born in 1995 looks like a kid making a page about themselves --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 00:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a keep - she participated in the 2010 Women's Volleyball World Championship. I don't know for sure if that allows her to pass WP:ATHLETE. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only source is primary, and she only appears as an entry in a list in that article. No significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. —SW— ^soliloquize 20:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - worthless micro-stub BLP with no claim to notability, no rs to establish it. Lara 22:27, 3 March 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) 02:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardus Wesling

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

No sources, no indication of notability, minor athlete who was barely a footnote to an Olympic event that happened a hundred years ago. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 00:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As a competitor at the Olympics, he passes WP:NSPORTS. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is an article about an Olympic athlete, and meets our notability guideline. It makes no difference whatsoever that this athlete competed over 100 years ago. This is not the encyclopedia of the new and trendy. It is the encyclopedia so comprehensive that it strives to cover every notable topic, even 1908 Olympic athletes. Cullen328 (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NSPORTS. —SW— ^confabulate 19:54, 3 March 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 - but the debate appeared to be leaning towards a keep per WP:HEY. NO harm to keep for a few months to see what happens next to this kid's career. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akari Saho

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

Delete - No evidence of notability, no references, only external link is to a personal userpage. Subject was born in 1995, appears to be a kid who made a page about herself. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 00:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hello! Pro Egg, assuming that page is even notable, of course. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. CSE hits. --Gwern (contribs) 19:48 3 March 2011 (GMT)
Delete - Incoherent article on a non-notable pop-musician-in-training. Fancruft. —SW— ^comment 19:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Keep - As I've now commented on the talk page for the article, I think that the creator of the article is clearly unrelated to the subject of this article. Anyway, Shugo Chara Egg!, of which Akari Saho is a member, at least passes WP:MUSICBIO criterion 10 as having performed a work used in a notable TV show (singing themes for Shugo Chara!). WP:MUSICBIO suggests that a member of a notable group who isn't otherwise notable as an individual should be redirected to the article on the group, and a musician or group that is only notable for performing a theme song for a work should be mentioned in the article on that work instead of having a separate article. That would suggest that Shugo Chara Egg! and Akari Saho should probably both be redirected to Shugo Chara!. However, Akari Saho was also part of Aa!, which I'm not sure would pass the notability guidelines but if it does that means she was part of two notable groups and should have her own article according to WP:MUSICBIO. There is also the question whether appearing in live action segments for one of the Shugo Chara! seasons and apparently appearing in a movie (at least according to the article) would allow her to pass WP:ENTERTAINER (unless that movie role was a major role, I don't think it would). So I think the article should at least be redirected, and possibly kept if it seems like she was a member of multiple notable groups or if her acting work was notable. Calathan (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, while User:Ashershow1 was correct that the article had no references when he started the AFD, it looks like several have been added (though only two of those seem independent from the subject). Calathan (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As it has been stated, I am not personally or professionally involved with the subject of my article, Akari Saho. I am a male caucasian, and not a Japanese teen. I wrote the article because I wanted an informative article in the English language about Akari to appear on Wikipedia. Akari has been a member of Hello! Project since 2004, as a Hello! Pro Egg, a trainees group. She was promoted to three groups since then, Tomoiki Ki Wo Uetai, Shugo Chara Egg! and Aa! As a member of Shugo Chara Egg! Akari sang the theme songs for the second and third seasons of the anime Shugo Chara!. Akari replaced a popular member of the group Aa! for concerts and compilation albums, and continues to perform with them at Hello! Project concerts as recent as January of this year. She has also appeared in the film Hoshisuna no Shima no Chiisana Tenshi ~Mermaid Smile~, released to Japanese theaters last year, and currently on DVD in Japan. The trailer for this film can be found on YouTube, and Akari does appear in it. I have not seen the film, so I cannot be sure how large her role is. Akari even as her own Facebook fan club, if this matters to anyone, called "Eggs-cellent Fans Of Akari Saho". I believe that she has many fans worldwide. I did indeed use my user space for the article, which was because it was my first article and I was inexperienced. Magical Girl Fan (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Magical Girl Fan[reply]
Keep - I've come here to urge you to keep this page. Akari Saho is a member of many groups within the Hello! Project. She is associated with the popular Shugo Chara anime, (which has a very strong American, and English-speaking in general, fanbase) and she has replaced Reina Tanaka in a group (Aa!). I don't see how she could be "not important enough" to have an article, if she replaced a prominent singer such as Tanaka. (Tanaka is one of the lead singers of Morning Musume, a popular Japanese all-girls group.) My point is, those things I've mentioned, along with her roles in that movie mentioned, show that she should be worthy of her article. Besides, a redirect will not suffice, due to her affiliation with various things. (Those would include Hello! Pro Egg, Aa!, and Shugo Chara Egg, to name a few...) Point is there are multiple places where her article could be argued to redirect to, but it can only go to one, right? So I think her article should stay. Maybe it can be revamped to work better. We can all do that. But her article should stay. Thanks for your time. Unlocked Heart (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Unlocked Heart. Doing a multi merge and redirect isn't very efficient. Might as well keep the article. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 18:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might as well mention that I added some sources to her article as well. As I want to help improve the article, I'll be trying to find good sources for all that has been mentioned within the article. With more (reliable) sources, and the already understood fact that the creator is not involved with the subject in any way, I think we can keep the article, no? (The only initial reasons to delete in the first place were lack of references and such, and the suspicion that Magical Girl Fan was involved with Akari Saho (which is not true)). Unlocked Heart (talk) 16:38, 5 March 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 British Humanist Association. Under WP:NACD, closure seems appropriate as there is a fair consensus. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution Revolution

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Resolution Revolution

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

This article contains little information about the initiative itself, and reads much more like an advert for the British Humanist Association. Half the content is testimonials and opinions which don't really belong on Wikipedia at all. The initiative could get a mention in the appropriate section of the British Humanist Association's page, but the article should be deleted. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Admittedly a good article in its current form... However, the subject of the article is the object of independent media coverage, such as THIS ONLINE STORY BY THE GUARDIAN. An article for improvement, not deletion. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to British Humanist Association. Yes, there is some minimal coverage of this particular initiative, but not enough in my opinion to support a full article on the subject. There is not even a mention of this initiative in the BHA article, and the BHA article doesn't have any WP:LENGTH issues. —SW— ^gossip 19:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into British Humanist Association per Snottywong. This isn't an especially notable initiative but the existence of some minor media coverage might merit inclusion of the topic as part of the parent organisation page. MLA (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to British Humanist Association per SnottyWong. There appears to be enough coverage that this should be mentioned (a sentence or two), but not enough continuing coverage or impact that it should be a full article. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per the arguments given. I don't rule out the possibility that a page like this could be free-standing if there were significantly more to say about it, but given the Bus Campaign is on the BHA page and that's probably had 10x the amount of media coverage that this campaign has had, it seems reasonable to merge and redirect. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've copied the content over on to the main BHA article. It seems merging is the quickest and simplest way to resolve this AfD. Then if there are concerns about notability or tone, they can be addressed by editing the section or getting consensus on Talk:British Humanist Association to remove. I'll contact proposer. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ [48]

[1] [48]

[1]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 3

Hoax

What is the point of requesting deletion?