Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 8 March 10 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Merging can be further discussed on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Eritrea–Ethiopia border skirmish[edit]

2010 Eritrea–Ethiopia border skirmish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article based on a claim made solely by Eritrea. That could easily be propaganda. DAI (Δ) 17:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Concerns were already expressed on the talk page, but no feedback --DAI (Δ) 17:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - as often stated, Wikipedia only cares about verifiability, not truth. There are two AP citations. Point of view can be fixed through the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - While I sympathize with DAI's concerns, finding objective & reliable sources for this part of the world will always be a challenge; neither government involved can be trusted to report events without some "shading" -- to put it mildly. We need more information from a reliable source to prove that this clash never happened. Until that is provided, it is reasonable to presume that there was a border clash as one side reported; if it can be shown that this wasn't notable enough to merit a separate article, then the material should be merged into Eritrean–Ethiopian War as an example of continuing tensions between the 2 countries. -- llywrch (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Somtimes in news articles it's hard to define whose always telling the truth, however agree with Bearian idea, we can always fix the Point of view. Nath1991 (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yet at the same time, Ethiopia states that 25 Eritrean soldiers were killed in a rebel attack. Its clear something happened there, not propaganda.--RM (Be my friend) 03:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
is it good for wikipedia to have such obscure things? Even such non notable ones?--DAI (Δ) 10:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Of course it is. It's only "obscure" because it's happening in a little country (and a big one) far away from most Wikipedia editors. If this had happened between the US and Canada, would this even be at AFD?--BelovedFreak 11:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has received independent significant coverage in reliable sources. Even in Western countries, the press is frequently biased and even completely wrong, especially when it comes to reporting about military occurrences. It's even more of a problem in countries that don't receive a lot of international coverage. We just have to make the best of the sources we have to make a neutral article. Here, we have just enough. Per User:Llywrch, if it's not deemed enough for a separate article, it can be merged, as it's part of a larger ongoing conflict. But we shouldn't delete it just because there are doubts a government may be telling the truth.--BelovedFreak 11:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no outcome or long-term effect for this one. Qajar (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, into Eritrean–Ethiopian War, in the Aftermath section. Dancarney (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearian. Facts (truth or not) presented with citations. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Shabazz[edit]

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

Not a notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you look at the sources that I linked you'll find out. It's explained very clearly how the subject gained "fame and infamy". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The question is not "what is he notable for," but rather "is he notable?" GNews, GScholar and Google strongly suggest that he is. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 10:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The book results and his role in converting Cassius Clay to Islam seem to satisfy [[WP:BIO], The article needs some rewriting because it smacks of autobiography or writing from personal knowledge rather than from secondary sources, and it is a bit positive POV. Edison (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ginsengbomb and Edison. One may not care for this person and still see clearly that he's notable. Adding additional sources and fixing point of view should have been done through the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nature Camp[edit]

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

Zero sources, fails WP:V. No bias against retention if RSs can be found before close, or against recreation if sources become available later --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources are local. No national coverage. Does not meet criteria in WP:ORG. SilkTork *YES! 17:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per SilkTork. The main problem I have with this entry is that the name is non-unique. Polargeo found media hits by searching for "Nature Camp" "George Washington". But if you omit "George Washington" from the search, you find lots of hits for other, equally well-sourced entities called "Nature Camp" in Florida, Connecticut, Tennessee, and probably other places; I didn't look any further. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable information from significant sources are found. I did not see even a hint of notability in the text, and thee are no WP:RS backing the article. Google cont does not equate to notability. Dlohcierekim 07:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question has anyone done a side-by-side comparison between the article and the subject's webpage? The lead and a later paragraph are derived from the webpage. It's late at night or early morning, so maybe I'm not seeing clearly, but I would like to suggest CSDG11 w/ a dash of G12. Dlohcierekim 07:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another one para 3 line 1. Dlohcierekim 07:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google search for "Nature Camp" " the Virginia Federation" I have not been through all these, so I don't know. If anyone would care to winnow. This is an example of what I found. Only blurbs, asides, and promo's. Nothing significant. Subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Dlohcierekim 08:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS and then off to bed With all due respect to Polargeo , I'm afraid those news links all point to trivial blurbs and mentions that are not enough, really, to satisfy the "significant coverage" requirement of the GNG. A local paragraph or three, here and there, (at most) and mostly about a fortunate child winning a scholarship to go there, and not supporting the content of the article. G'night, Dlohcierekim 08:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PPS- I don't think there's enough notability to warrant a merge. Dlohcierekim 16:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per polargeo. It's labeled as a stub and there is enough material around to meet WP:V and WP:NPOV with a little work. If the page isn't improved in a few months, delete it then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Last1in (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think the available material shows that this particular camp is in any way distinctive. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to George Washington and Jefferson National Forests for now. There are significant sources as linked by User:Polargeo. Perhaps in the future, it can be written with the available sources in an npov manner.--PinkBull 18:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with Love (The Beatles album). I'll redirect. Any editor wanting to merge verifiable material is free to do so. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love (Interview Disc)[edit]

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

Perma-stub with no sources, marked for merge since last November. As far as I can tell, there is no meaningful content, but even if there was (or if someone adds some), it can and should be merged into Love (The Beatles album). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as suggested by Justin. It is tough to search for sources on this item due to the bland title, but the disc does not seem to appear in Beatles discographies as maintained by fan clubs, record labels, etc. Perhaps this is an obscure collector's item coveted by the Beatlemania crowd, but for WP the merge would be sufficient. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and cite. If no reliable sources then delete. SilkTork *YES! 17:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. It appears that article is now sourced and notable per WP:MUSIC. I withdraw the nomination. vvvt 20:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toshi Yano[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Or at least I did not manage to find any. vvvt 03:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Did you click on "news" under "find sources"? NY Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, and others. This AFD should be withdrawn.Repo-Box (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See my note about the significant coverage above. vvvt 16:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose whether the coverage is "significant" is a matter of opinion. The way I see it this is more coverage than 90+% of the content on wikipedia (and I am being very conservative in that estimate). So yeah, I'd say it's significant. If you don't think it is significant then you might consider tackling the 90+% of the content on Wikipedia with less coverage. Repo-Box (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very reluctantly. Like vvv I question whether the sources would ordinarily be enough for a stand-alone article. But WP:MUSIC states: "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." I think it states that for good reason: once a person is a member of two notable bands, there's no longer a viable redirect. As long as the membership of the multiple bands can be sourced (and here it can), you can have a basic sourced stub on the musician setting out the bands the musician has been a member of. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Into The Mouth of Badd(d)ness. Editors that are able to merge verifiable material about the single are welcome to do so. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 06:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Mouth of Badd(d)ness[edit]

In the Mouth of Badd(d)ness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article consists of fan trivia, some of which can be added to album article Into The Mouth of Badd(d)ness. Otherwise, WP:NSONGS is not met. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that sufficient sources have been found to establish the notability of the event. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deanna Cremin[edit]

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

This article presents more as a tribute page than an encyclopedic entry. JeffJ (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved to Murder of Deanna Cremin, to focus more on the event than the person.

To be fair, I went looking for Deanna Cremin Square and although I have no reason to doubt its existence, I suspect that it's quite a small piece of land. I looked for it using Google Earth and Google Street View and couldn't find it. And the scholarship is but $500.00 at her former high school. It's nice that a song was written about her, but it's not all that uncommon. You seem to have access to print articles that aren't available online; Why not use them to build on the article? --JeffJ (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:HEY, you mean? This is what you need to make you change your opinion that the article should be kept? If so, sounds like a deal. --GRuban (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that even an expanded article would increase its notability. I'm just surprised that, considering your strong feelings about the subject and your apparent access to printed matter, you haven't tried to expand the article. I'll keep an open mind, but my previous arguments for deletion still stand. --JeffJ (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:VICTIM. The notability of Deanna Cremin is based solely on her having been murdered, which, while tragic, is a fairly common occurrence. That aside, the article only offers two sentences, with very scant detail, on the murder. Instead the article focuses on Ms. Cremin and the peripheral, creating more of a tribute to the victim, than an encyclopedic entry. There are current newspaper articles, but only in local newspapers, which is a common occurrence when family members continue to publicize the crime. I wouldn't call it a "continuous stream of press" and the "multiple reliable newspapers" is a small local paper (without a wiki-entry) and the Boston Herald. Most of the references you've added don't actually link to anything. It would be easier to verify notability if the references linked to the articles. The one article in the Herald (2005) indicates new information may have become available, but does not elevate the crime to notable any more than any other cold case.--JeffJ (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notability is based on her being regularly written about since, getting a square and a song and a scholarship fund, which is not a fairly common occurrence. The articles are from the Boston Herald and Boston Globe in addition to two local papers (Somerville News and Somerville Journal), and don't link to anything because they are print articles, on paper. If you're interested in a count, there have been 30 articles from the Herald, 19 from the Globe. That more than meets the General Notability Guideline.--GRuban (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many unsolved murders receive reoccurring coverage particularly when the family continues to promote publication. But we're still only seeing relatively local coverage of what began as a news event, but has since devolved into what could be described better as "human interest" coverage with the main subject of the articles being more about Deanna's family and how they've dealt with the murder, than the crime itself. In other words, the articles may mention Deanna, but she is not the focus of the article. Neither the Somerville News or the Somerville Journal have Wikipedia articles, which speaks to the notability of those newspapers. Somerville itself is a relatively small town, so it's easy to see why the local papers would cover any unsolved murder, but we're still only seeing 30 articles for a 15 year period, and again, Deanna is not the focus of most of the articles. I searched the Somerville News database from Jan 2005 to present and no results were returned for "Deanna Cremin". A search of the Somerville Journal found 11 articles that mention Deanna's name, but one result appears to be an editorial submitted by Deanna's mother, and another is about an unrelated murder but mentions Deanna. A third article is about a scholarship fund. So a simple occurrence of a person's name in an article does not count.
If you brush aside the Somerville News and Journal as minor newspapers from a small town, why are you bothering to search their sites? Look to the Globe and Herald coverage. They're major, respected papers (4 Pulitzers for the Herald, 18 for the Globe), from a large city, and, as mentioned, quite a bit of coverage of Deanna Cremin. Not the focus of the articles? Surely not, all the articles only cover the family in relation to Cremin's murder. The Deanna Cremin scholarship fund is certainly an important part of Deanna Cremin's notability, the same way, oh ... the Pulitzer Prize is an important part of the notability of Joseph Pulitzer. --GRuban (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to start comparing Deanna Cremin, whom I presume was a wonderful person in her own right, to Joseph Pulitzer, then I suspect that you are a bit too emotionally attached to the subject to discuss it objectively. --JeffJ (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That aside, the Wikipedia entry sums up Deanna's murder in all of 2 sentences: "Deanna Cremin was found behind a senior housing complex only four days after her seventeenth birthday. An autopsy revealed she had been strangled, and her murder remains unsolved." The rest of the article offers a 2 sentence biography, then goes on to discuss the aftermath. There's no details on the crime, the investigation, etc. This article would be better labelled What the Cremins did after Deanna died. Compare this article with some other unsolved murders: JonBenét Ramsey or Louise Teuber. What it comes down to is: What is the encyclopedic value of this article? --JeffJ (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article should be about the event, and its aftermath, not the person, and there is room for expanding the article contents about the event, but changing the title or content of the article is outside the deletion decision. This nomination is only to decide whether the subject is deserving of an article, and we have a guideline about that,Wikipedia:Notability, which it clearly meets. That guideline says nothing about "the article must spend X sentences describing the murder, or it should be deleted." If you can find a similar guideline defining "encyclopedic value" I suspect it would meet that too, but until then, I don't know what your criteria for it are. --GRuban (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We also have guidelines WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:VICTIM, the latter of which specifically addresses the notability of victims within Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). To simply refer to Wikipedia:Notability is insufficient and indicates to me that you either did not adequately educate yourself on Notability or that you are being deliberately obtuse. What you have to consider is whether Deanna Cremin herself is notable. Would she have merited an entry had she not been murdered? Then you have to consider if the crime merits an entry. In my opinion, this was a rather mundane murder, no different than scores of other murders that occur daily, that received only local coverage. And Deanna herself was just an ordinary person with an ordinary life (her biography is 2 sentences!). If we pare down the article to the crime and the victim, we have 4 sentences. That alone indicates to me that there was nothing more of note to write, hence not notable. --JeffJ (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial. (GregJackP (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete classic instance of not memorial, and one event. No encyclopedic suitability. DGG ( talk ) 07:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at WP:NOTMEMORIAL it specifically says that the subject should meet the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. She clearly does, with the nearly 50 articles from the Boston Globe and Boston Herald that I link to above (hidden in the tl;dr wall of text, perhaps, but they're there). I'm working on adding them to the article. --GRuban (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Somerville, Massachusetts per WP:LOCAL. There is plenty of local interest. The local newspapers have covered the story extensively over the years. SilkTork *YES! 18:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Somerville, Massachusetts, per User: Silktork. A fine idea.--PinkBull 18:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A great idea! I support Merge to Somerville, Massachusetts. --JeffJ (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er ... and if the same thing happened in New York City, you'd be supporting a merge there? Note that the papers in question are Boston papers. --GRuban (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and recategorize this and other similar cases into a new category called "Unsolved US Homicides by State". Cases like this one have a distinction in that they meet WP:GNG and exceptions noted in WP:VICTIM, yet disagreement on notability persists, especially when comparisons are made to extremely high profile or famous historic cases. The extent and persistence of effort and media coverage in cases like these are not common among the estimated 200,000+ unsolved murder cases in the US since 1960. These sort of cases deserve a place in Wikipedia. Msdny (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really talking about creating articles in order to describe 200,000+ unsolved murders? Are any of them less Notable than what really amounts to "Average person gets stabbed, police baffled"? Cremin's story is a tragic one, but the article really just boils down to:
On March 29, 1995, Cremin's body was found at 8 a.m. on March 30, behind an elderly housing complex, less than a block from her home, lying on her back, and mostly undressed. An autopsy revealed she had been strangled, and her murder remains unsolved.

That's it as far as Cremin or the crime are concerned. The rest of the article is not much more than filler (see also WP:MASK). And Cremin has websites out there keeping her memory alive, so other than acting as a memorial, what is the global value of the information contained? Again we must refer to WP:VICTIM and the broader WP:N/CA. Or else, start writing articles for the other 200,000+ tragic, unsolved murders. --JeffJ (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP really needs to work out which murder victims/murders/murderers get articles, and which don't. How to work that out, I don't know. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article also fails the Notability challenge with regards to Independent Sources. While there are a number of references listed there are only 2 mainstream sources, and 2 local sources (serving a population of about 77,000). The Teen Ink reference is a poem. A Google search found no mainstream media coverage outside the Somerville/Boston area.
  • And since no one seems to be reading WP:VICTIM here is the criteria:
"A victim of a high-profile crime does not automatically qualify as being notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on his or her status as a victim. Notability with regards to this is normally defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question.
As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission. Thus, attempts at inclusion prompted by appearance in the press should not be excluded if notability can be otherwise asserted.[1] Also, consistent with WP:BLP1E, articles on persons primarily known as victims may be appropriate for persons with a large role within well-documented historic events. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role (for example, Matthew Shepard)." --JeffJ (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've agreed from the beginning, the article should be moved to coverage of the event. Deanna Cremin herself didn't have a very notable life before being murdered; the coverage is almost all coverage of the murder (it is quite persistent, 15 years, and we still have dedicated TV coverage of it). But that's not the same thing as deleting the article. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says I can move the article during the discussion, but should notify, as it may produce confusion. Notifying. --GRuban (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that Cremin is not Notable. So now explain why the crime is. Coverage of the murder has not been persistent or "dedicated". You cite one local station with a piece almost a year old that presents as more local human-interest than news. --JeffJ (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As above, almost 50 articles from the Globe and Herald,[2] [3] including large pieces over a decade later, plus the TV station and newspapers. Any event that has 50 articles about it is Wikipedia:notable. The event was in 1995, the dates on the Herald articles are 2006, 2005, 2005, 2001, 2001, 1999, 1999, 1997, 1997, 1997 ... as you have properly noted, the Television piece is from 2009; that's persistent. In addition to that, a dedicated square, a song from a notable singer, a published poem, and a continuing scholarship, but they shouldn't be necessary. It meets Wikipedia:Notability from the coverage. --GRuban (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. It fails. A poem on a private website is not a source, the square does not even show up on maps, the scholorship is $500 at her local high school, and don't confuse articles for sources. Numerous articles from one source is still just one source. And there is still only local coverage demonstrated. JeffJ (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per good work done by GRuban to salvage the article. I know there are people who think wikipedia shouldn't have articles covering significant criminal events, but I have never understood the alleged harm done by such articles when they are sourced; they become the primary source for the inevitable google searches done on the event.--Milowent (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Milowent. Also, since there is enough verifiable info to have this nice long argument, there's enough out there to create a WP:V article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Last1in (talk • contribs) 14:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the rewrite and rename, which have demonstrated that the event is notable. The newspaper articles span a wide range of years (1995, 2000, 2005, 2006, and 2009) and thus demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE. Cunard (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to cite WP:PERSISTENCE then you should also consider WP:DIVERSE. -- JeffJ (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:SENSATION -- JeffJ (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone who might be intimidated by the WP:EIEIO :-) - WP:DIVERSE recommends multiple sources be provided for an event, rather than just one. In this case we have substantial coverage from four newspapers and a television station. WP:SENSATION recommends avoiding tabloid journalism. None of the five sources are tabloids, and two have won multiple Pulitzer Prizes. Cunard explains WP:PERSISTENCE well. I think they're all more than met, though I respect that JeffJ disagrees. --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, I just want those who are weighing in to make informed decisions. -- JeffJ (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Click the Google news search link at the top of the AFD, and notice the date in which articles were published mentioning her. One reads: "It's been 2 1/2 years since Deanna Cremin scratched the surface of our awareness". Another was written 10 years after it happened. This is a notable event, continual coverage over the years. Dream Focus 01:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Teen Media Institute[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. most of the gnews listing is events listings not in depth coverage. [4]. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Significant coverage in independent reliable sources here and here. Some several hundred cites of them as a news source/news organisation rebroadcasting on a range of TV and radio stations both in Alaska and elsewhere. Also note that since they are a news source that apparently exercises editorial control, and that their journalists have won notable awards, this is a case where having an article on them enriches Wikipedia in ways other than directly through content (by allowing a collection point for discussion about their reliability as a source). - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 07:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence for now. The links provided by Dust for Worms are pretty trivial coverage, and I'm not sure that the Alaska ICE site could be considered a reliable source anyway. My own search found a lot of content produced by ATMI, but not much about the organization. Perhaps if we keep digging some better, more substantial sources could be found. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 10:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet encyclopedia project[edit]

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

Poorly sourced dicdef, nothing but an examplefarm full of third-party links and red links. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve. The general topic of using the internet for creating an encyclopedia is notable enough and this could develop into a really useful and interesting article. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the idea of Internet encyclopedias is quite notable; as there are multiple Internet encyclopedias that pass our notability guidelines, there's plenty of possible sourcing for this article. Perhaps move over redirect to Internet encyclopedia: "project" is good for encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, but it's not so good for encyclopedias such as the 1911 Britannica that are available online (and thus belong in this article), but which are expert-driven commercial works rather than volunteer-produced encyclopedias. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It could certainly use some more sourcing, but the history of attempts to create an internet encyclopedia is most certainly notable. To an extent, I agree with 10-lb. -- this shouldn't be an excuse to list examples of internet encyclopedias, and the bottom half of the page is basically a regurgitation of list of online encyclopedias. Mandsford (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.Biophys (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Wikipedia's article on itself has in its infobox, "Type of site Internet encyclopedia project". Clicking on Google news or Google books shows some places the phrase was also used, there no doubt it is a real thing. The article is quite well written, plenty of information in it. Dream Focus 05:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To nominator, I only see three red links, and dozens of blue ones. And most of those links are to Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 05:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia has many articles which arise from humble dicdef beginnings. Noms assertion that poorly refed seems misleading, I don't see any refs. But neither do I see exceptional statements or and content that seems dubious and needing sourcing to be introduced asap. Most of those links are blue and not red so that too seems false. It would be nice to see a few good refs but that subject is clearly notable and sourcible. WP:Before would seem to be a relative concept here. -- Banjeboi 11:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. While there is not a clear consensus that the subject of the article is non-notable, there is consensus that the current article is unacceptable and Wikipedia is improved by its removal. A neutral article based on reliable sources that neither quots nor paraphrases company marketing materials may be acceptable. But until one is written it is better to keep deleted. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capstone publishers[edit]

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

Speedily deleted 4 times, once for copyright, three times for blatant advertising. Article is substantially the same, but last speedy deletion request was removed by an editor other than the author rather than using the hangon process. The company meets notability requirements. All references save one are to self-published company websites. No verifiable sources listed for facts stated in the article. Based upon the WP:ORG criteria, under the advertising section, it appears that the main reason is to direct the reader to the websites of the company (including its subsidiaries). GregJackP (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep sufficient references to show notability. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - notability is not the issue in the nom. The article is basically the same advert that was speedily deleted 4 times. (GregJackP (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no doubt that the company exists, but I couldn't find any reliable source which has commented upon the company in a significant manner. The main sources are press releases or the company's own websites. Does not meet the appropriate notability criteria - WP:ORG. SilkTork *YES! 18:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I went back and looked at four areas of the article. Individual sentences are either directly lifted from copyrighted sources (the reason for the first speedy delete) or extremely close paraphrasing of copyrighted material. See the article and its talk page for more information. (GregJackP (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - even I can't find a reason this article should be kept. I can't see any way this could be recrafted to meet WP standards. Even a complete rewrite would hit half the WP:NOT landmines. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are enough sources. The article as currently written does not comply with WP:NPOV. It should be stubbed so that we can start from scratch to remove the promotional tone.--PinkBull 14:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After looking around, I can only find references on the company's own website or on a PR website. There's no establishment of notability by the article and the website of the company offers little more than whitewash. The only exception is this article which barely mentions the company. While the nom may take no issue with WP:N, I respectfully do. I do, however, agree with the nom's argument under WP:ORG, advertisement. Either way you spin it, or however you rework the content, the article fails to meed WP standards for inclusion. AP1787 (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Live: London '08 (Hadouken! EP)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
ITunes Live: London '08 (Hadouken! EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I PROD-ded this article earlier today, editor removed the PROD and said via edit summary: "There are articles on iTunes Live releases for many other artists, I don't see why this one is any less notable." That doesn't quite get beyond WP:OTHERSTUFF. My original point was: "Non-notable digital-only mini-release that has received no coverage beyond iTunes and similar file-sharing sites." DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that this is a notable company and that problems with article tone can be fixed by editing. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socialwok[edit]

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

Article is basically one giant advertisement for the product. It also seems to violate WP:RS, in that three of the four references are to TechCrunch, a tech blog, and the fourth is to another site that is definitely a blog. Further, the article was was created by Druidswok (talk · contribs), who is almost certainly a conflict of interest, and who has also gone around spamming links to the service on various articles. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article states facts related to the startup and the 3 references to Techcrunch are third party journalist articles written about the company. This is not any different from other articles like Yammer they have over 4 links to Techcrunch. Yammer also has multiple mentions in microblogging and other related. How is Yammer not advertising? and Socialwok is?? Btw if you look at the Yammer article creator. It is the CEO himself —
Regarding edits to Google Buzz & Google Apps, you have to have objective about the actual content. In Google Apps - the content added was on Solutions marketplace place that is not related to Socialwok and launched by google itself. URL substantiating the facts of the launch was put in. Link to Socialwok was added as an example of what third party apps are like for the solution marketplace which is listing marketplace for Google Apps
In Google Buzz - the content added was on social protocols that Google announced and the urls are there from google and substantiated. Socialwok has announced support for it just like other players microsoft and yahoo which were listed. The Google Buzz article is on social networking and the existing links include facebook which is a social networking site. Socialwok is a business social networking site for Google Apps and has even greater relevancy to the article.
Pls do not use your own subjective edits on other people's comment. You can vote for the edit. But in this case, we should leave it to another person to give judgement on whether the content is to be added or not. You cannot just delete other people's entries. It is against wikipedia rules of conduct HelloDruidswok Druidswok 03:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment: Thank you for stealing my sig. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We're not here to discuss Yammer. The fact is that this article is one big advertisement for Socialwok, and you've gone around spamming links to it on other pages as well. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Let's be constructive about this. Because if this article is advertising, then pls explain how an article like Yammer is not advertising when it is written by its CEO. Please help me make the article Socialwok not advertising instead of being bias and wanting to just delete. Why don't u help me edit the article such that it is not advertising? That's a lot harder that the easy way out of saying you want to delete the article and depriving other people of the facts of the article. Socialwok by the way is used by over 5k businesses and over 7k users in the world. Druidswok 15:22, March 4, 2010
  • Delete, unambiguous advertising: a business Social Networking service launched in September 2009.....tightly integrated with the existing workflow of small medium businesses like email. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Just to clarify, I initially put the article up for CSD under G11, but it was declined. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Declining a speedy deletion does not establish that the article shouldn't be deleted as advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I declined speedy deletion because it did not meet the criteria given, and referred it to AFD. seicer | talk | contribs 03:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is why people with a reason not to be objective shouldn't write about their businesses or products. The new version is still trying to sell its readers on the advantages this particular product has over other "enterprise collaboration tools". These back-office tools aren't very promising subjects for articles to begin with; the sooner this gets realized, the less friction we're going to get around the edges about an endless series of minor entries in business to business product categories. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If TechCrunch50 is notable (I am not so sure) then this article about the startup that won one of its more important competitions should be notable as well. Article is not exactly NPOV but the blatancy I cannot see (anymore). --Pgallert (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I mean, I find most of the text on there to be pretty NPOV. Do we really need a single-line quote about its launch? Why are there three screenshots for something of questionable notability? And then we have text like "Socialwok is notably one of the more sophisticated web application to be built on Google's platform" and "Socialwok was launched 5 months ahead of Google Buzz - Google's feed sharing platform". Aside from the fact that neither of those has a reference attached, it's simply inappropriate for Wiki and generally shows a larger issue of advertisement. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I agree that a lot of the article is advertising and unencyclopedic. On the other hand, the product is real and has generated a lot of buzz on techie blogs (in which category I am including TechCrunch). However, there has been zero coverage in general-interest or mainstream media, as opposed to blogs. I would propose a compromise: keep the article, but strip out all the advertising stuff ("look at all the wonderful things it does!") and leave it as a stub until it generates some real WP:RS coverage. (BTW Druidswok, your argument and agitation here is not helping your cause - particularly not your repeated argument that other articles are just as bad. Your best bet at this point would be to stand back and let the community evaluate the article on its merits.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep substantial coverage is needed, but not necessarily in mainstream media; things that are notable are usually notable in a particular area and will be covered by the media appropriate for that area. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the plentiful coverage in reliable sources. See this article from AsiaOne, this profile in CNET and this one-paragraph coverage from PC Magazine. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Simone[edit]

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

Many claims in this article, not many of them substantiated. No significant publications, no awards etc. Fails WP:AUTHOR. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, fails WP:GNG Tassedethe (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Daniel Simone has created an unprecedented format with which he interviews and profiles celebrity novelists followed by a transparent and informative review of their latest novels. The monthly feature is titled, BETWEEN THE LINES, and is published by the largest publication in the New York metropolitan area, LONG ISLAND PULSE magazine. Mr. Simone's summarization of the subject books, not only interpret and evaluate the framework of their themes, but also, he himself a novelist, dissects and outlines with obvious but clear expertise the style and methodologies of different authors; interesting facts and pointers that extend beyond the boring, pedantic book reviews that, in the end, say nothing that the reader can comprehend. In conclusion, in my opinion, he has invented a fresh manner with which to learn about an author's literary demeanor and a simplistic representation of his or her latest tome. Moreover, as cited in the main page, Daniel Simone has been interviewing and writing in other prominant periodicals about celebrities that hail from the famous summer vacation hot spot, New York's Hamptons region.Saul friedgood (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC) — Saul friedgood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. No significant references. Google supplies mostly hits to other people named Daniel Simone; Google News supplies nothing. He apparently writes an occasional piece for a couple of minor regional magazines; that's about it. Half of the article consists of name-dropping about various other (clearly notable) people, but their notability does not rub off on him. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - specious claims like "the largest publication in the New York metropolitan area, LONG ISLAND PULSE magazine" indicates to me that this is either a hoax or spam. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • kEEP - The assertion by User:Saul Friedgood that LONG ISLAND PULSE magazine is the New York Metropolitan area monthly publication with the largest circulation is not a hoax or spam. In fact, such a claim is substantiated by an independant audit certified by the AUDIT BUREAU OF CIRCULATIONS, which is an established organization that is most respected and relied upon by editors as well as perspective advertisers. (ABC's 'Pink Sheet', the document that verifies the audits, can be availed by LONG ISLAND PULSE administrators). The other various periodicals that Mr. Simone, for many years, has been profiling celebrities for, also have circulations volume certified by ABC. More important, contrary to User: MelanieN, Daniel Simone's innovative and entertainingly formatted monthly feature, BETWEEN THE LINES, is not about name dropping. Instead, in that recurring chronicle he has conducted live interviews and profiled highly celebrated authors and novelists. For example: Ridley Pearson, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Stuart Woods, Nelson DeMille, John Irving, Amy Bloom, etc...

Moreover, Mr. Simone, in colloboration of his subjects, has written synoptic biographies of world-famous actors and screenwriters: Lorraine Bracco, James Lipton, the reknowned astrophycist, Neil Degrasse Tyson, the legal analyst anchor, Jami Floyd, the biographers, Tom Clavin and Bob Drury, etc... As a result of it all, Daniel Simone has been a coveted guest as a writing teacher for the chain book store, Barnes & Noble,and his unique writing style and editorials have accumulated a substantial range of readers, the reason for the welcome and free-hand allowed him by the publications that he contributes to.Jay minter (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment - The Long Island Pulse has a paid & verified circulation of 5,106, and gives away over 99,000 copies 11 times a year. That is not a notable journal and certainly not the "New York Metropolitan area monthly publication with the largest circulation ...." Bearian (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing substantial.We do not normally consider columnists notable merely on the basis of their columns without secondary sources about them; ghostwriters who write books that cannot be named cannot expect to have their notability recognized--it's part of the bargain that they remain invisible-- nothing else is substantial. if he writes the three books the articles says he's writing, and if they are every published, and if they receive significant reviews, then he will be notable Not now. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 07:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cousins[edit]

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

Non-notable business man/real estate developer. Has a few arguable assertions of notability due to redesigning a gold course. There are no references and no real indicator that the article's subject comes close to meeting the notability requirements of WP. Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally there seems to be an awful lot of name dropping going on in the article, yet none supported by references. Once the 'famous' names are removed very little seems to be left. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless I have lost my mind, the Google News results above confirm that Mr Cousins is a major ATL businessman, owned pro team(s), etc. Abductive (reasoning) 08:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A quick glance at the google news results shows that he has been mentioned many times in primary sources. This AFD should be withdrawn.Repo-Box (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage of this guy, in reliable sources, is significant. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pretty obvious that many sources exist. A fact unknown to many is that sportswriters are among the hardest working journalists as they often have only a few games to write about 5-7 days a week. Why is this meaningful here? On almost any major sports team the owner is almost certainly to be written about, regularly. This subject owned two teams. Add that to his real estate work, which itself is almost certainly covered to some extent in the city's/region's business press and you have plenty to at least start a stub. There are plenty of leads here and sourcing to confirm notability. -- Banjeboi 13:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am strongly of the opinion that this man is notable. As well as the sources that I have been adding, I do know that he was mentioned in Forbes in the 1970s (though I can't access the article online) and that he has been active in Atlanta politics. There's something about some sort of Crusade in the biography material I've sourced in which Cousins is mentioned prominently, but I don't quite understand it so I'm not adding that material at present.ManicSpider (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per current sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. It appears that article is now sourced and notable per WP:MUSIC. I withdraw the nomination. vvvt 20:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toshi Yano[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Or at least I did not manage to find any. vvvt 03:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Did you click on "news" under "find sources"? NY Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, and others. This AFD should be withdrawn.Repo-Box (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See my note about the significant coverage above. vvvt 16:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose whether the coverage is "significant" is a matter of opinion. The way I see it this is more coverage than 90+% of the content on wikipedia (and I am being very conservative in that estimate). So yeah, I'd say it's significant. If you don't think it is significant then you might consider tackling the 90+% of the content on Wikipedia with less coverage. Repo-Box (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very reluctantly. Like vvv I question whether the sources would ordinarily be enough for a stand-alone article. But WP:MUSIC states: "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." I think it states that for good reason: once a person is a member of two notable bands, there's no longer a viable redirect. As long as the membership of the multiple bands can be sourced (and here it can), you can have a basic sourced stub on the musician setting out the bands the musician has been a member of. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Radiohead, with no prejudice to the creation of Radiohead demos. Interested editors are free to merge verifiable material. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 08:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manic Hedgehog[edit]

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

(Almost) unsourced article on a demo album. Alternatively: merge/redirect to Radiohead or Radiohead demos. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Radiohead (with the history preserved under the redirect), which is the best alternative to deletion. A redirect will allow interested contributors to merge the information in this article to either Radiohead or to a new Radiohead demos article mentioned above. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalamandalam Tirur Nambissan[edit]

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

The article's unreferenced and I'm not finding any reliable sources on this person, and the article's written as a glorification. Fame is claimed but WP:Notability not established. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just tagged the article for WP:Conflict of interest. The author has the same family name and claims to be the copyright holder of the accompanying photo, so possibly a family member. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopening Being WP:BOLD, I've reopened this discussion because (1) the author recreated the article, with the Afd notice intact, and (2) at the time it was deleted, I was in the middle of comparing it to the page of which it was supposed to be a copyright violation, and while the derivation was obvious, the sequence and wording had been thoroughly reworked, and information was mixed in that wasn't from that page, so I'm not convinced there was a copyright problem. I also didn't see any reason to open a new deletion discussion from scratch. If reopening this is a real problem for some logistical reason, let me know, but it seemed like a reasonable way to proceed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find "I'm not convinced there was a copyright problem" slightly surprising, coming hot on the heels of "the derivation was obvious". While it is true that the wording had been moved around it was clearly a rearrangement of the page it was copied from, and not original work. However, this is not very relevant since copyright was not the reason for this AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I was being inconsistent. He covered many of the same points, and in some places the sequencing of, say, people's names was roughly the same, but he reworded and reordered it so thoroughly that I wouldn't expect a legal copyright issue to arise. Copyright doesn't prevent someone from covering all the same information present in another person's work. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no evidence at all of notability. The article currently gives no sources. (Previously there were three "references", but none were to reliable sources. In addition one of them was not a citation for a statement in the article, but just a link to a YouTube video related to something mentioned in the article. The other two were links to Wikipedia articles in which statements about Kalamandalam Tirur Nambissan had been inserted by the author of this article: about as good an illustration of why Wikipedia is not accepted as a source as I have ever seen.) I have looked at about the first couple of dozen hits from a Google search. I found Wikipedia, Wapedia, social network and similar self-publishing sites, listings sites containing brief mention of Kalamandalam Tirur Nambissan, etc, but nothing that could remotely be considered as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Blind & Disabled[edit]

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

The article is about a charitable organization of local scope, with no demonstration of activities outside of the London area and minimal coverage in secondary sources. While I'm sure it's a worthwhile charity, the article does not show me that it is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TEAM AV[edit]

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

Delete, indie label which looks to fail general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Sakal[edit]

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

The article has been tagged for notability for years and the two links provided only give a very brief mention of him. Possible failure of notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. I agree the original name was not a good choice, and the initial impression the article gave was not very positive. But the consensus after the name change was clearly to keep DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work aversion disorder[edit]

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

Original research. "Work aversion disorder" as a concept does not exist in any reliable sources. Google scholar comes up empty. Web site devoted to supposed disorder is now defunct. I suspect it was owned by the same person who authored this. As a disclosure, I removed many references that merely mentioned the words "aversion to work" in various unrelated contexts. Suspect that was just window dressing as a result of the previous AfD to make the concept appear notable. Gigs (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while "Work aversion" has some cites, this can not even be verified. The last AfD has no consensus, but I hope we can get to some decision now. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Laziness isn't a disorder. If it is, I need therapy, but I'm too lazy for that. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above (GregJackP (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • REDIRECT ,Delete Keep Per the work done Hellno2. Beach drifter (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename back to "Work Aversion." This was the original title of the article, and it was properly sourced back then. Someone along the way changed it to "Work Aversion Disorder," and that's where everything went wrong. I returned these references; they should stay here for now. Hellno2 (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:NEO "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term." Sources that merely use the phrase "work aversion" do not constitute coverage, and shouldn't be cited as sources in the way that you did. Gigs (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NEO is strictly about neologisms. This article is NOT about a neologism. It is about a concept, so therefore, WP:NEO does not apply here.
      • Please note that the nom has renamed the essay linked and used to justify its deletion from "Bombardment" to "Window dressing." The nom is trying to imply deception, but this actually seems deceptive to me the way this was done. The nom's rationales are this, zero WP:GHITS (not considered a valid reason for deletion), and WP:OR, which per WP:PROBLEM can be cleaned up. Meanwhile, all the "deletes" here seem to be a debate that this is the same as laziness or just hope to reach a consensus. They do not really give a good reason for deleting. The "keeps" actually give good arguments and try to show where actual information on the concept can be found (see WP:PROVEIT). Hellno2 (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article is pure original research and synthesis. It's a common phrase that doesn't exist as a distinct concept of its own outside of Wikipedia. Those are fine reasons for deleting. We don't make up new concepts and then write articles about them. Gigs (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • According to Reasons for deletion, an article is not deleted if it has some problems that can be cleaned up. I know you feel this is purely synthesis, but it is only partially. This is surely a surmountable problem. Hellno2 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Sorry, it was me who renamed it. I did so because of a page on something called Work Aversion Disorder. Work aversion (not disorder) is a notable concept with plenty of

verifiable information. It has been covered even in ancient sources. I can see rewriting the article about work aversion (not disorder), then including a section on disorders that may lead to work aversion. Pink cloudy sky (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: As others have mentioned, Work Aversion Disorder may not be notable. But the concept of Work Aversion is. In fact, there are entire articles and sections of books on it. This page should be renamed to the original title or to Aversion to work. From there, the OR can be cleaned up. Sources using the words "Work Aversion" can be found here and here. Sources using the term "aversion to work" can be found here and here. Tatterfly (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merely using the phrase is not coverage of the phrase as a distinct concept and does not establish notability. Gigs (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are plenty of sources about this, just under a different name. Dew Kane (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have made some changes to this article to remove OR and synthesis, and to add material from multiple sources that directly reflects what the sources contain about the concept. I have also renamed the article back to its original title. I have not made all the changes necessary yet; this may take a lot of time, due to the length of this article. The bottom line: Per WP:BATHWATER, I do believe this article is salvageable. Hellno2 (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subject of the article is the synthesis. You can't edit that out of the article, it's fundamentally flawed. Gigs (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per rename and continue to improve. Well done Hellno2. Fanx (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarona Snuka[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE as she is only in Florida Championship Wrestling, the farm team of WWE. Wrestlers frequently work there, are released, and are never heard from again...so it is not the top level of her sport. In addition, she doesn't meet WP:GNG, as there is no news coverage of her in reliable third party sources. Nikki♥311 21:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I DONT THINK THIS PAGE SHOULD BE DELETED, WP:ATHLETE is not really applicable here because, she is at the top of her farm which is FCW, they have 2-3 shows every week, which include Sarona as a wrestler and a manager. FCW is a level of there own. WWE, signed FCW as only a trainig facility. If WWE was to drop FCW tommorow then FCW would continue having wrestling shows, weither they are with WWE or not. So Sarona is really at the top of her level in FCW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissadu (talk • contribs) 20:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How could she be at the top level of FCW when she was only just signed there? If you don't think ATHLETE applies, can you prove her notable per WP:ENTERTAINER, as professional wrestlers are really a combination of the two? Nikki♥311 04:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FCW is not an elite level. It is an indy fed only that just happens to be WWE's training ground. So WP:ATHLETE is a definite fail. GetDumb 03:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Jacques[edit]

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

This article has gone through a lot of debate between me and other editors, and was obviously started as an autobiography(see user name). Also, there is a lack of notability; no evidence that this person meets WP:PROF or WP:MUSICBIO. Finally, many of the references (listed as notes) use commercial websites that simply host music, or foreign sources. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom, simply does not seem to be enough coverage in secondary sources to warran an article.TheRingess (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've looked quite extensively for references for this. While his PhD. thesis appears in about 60 bibliographies for other papers, this is not sufficient for an academic to have their own article. Re the music aspects of his career, there is likewise no coverage or reviews of the CDs mentioned in which he is claimed to the composer (and performer). The CDs appear to be self-published. The article appears to be a pre-publicity attempt for the second CD. Note that this article's creator, User:Alain.m.jacques also created Jacques Pottier, who sings the songs composed by Alain Jacques. There is also zero independent biographical material available apart from this article which appears to be an autobiography. I suggest also listing this with music-related AfDs.--Voceditenore (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Internet Exchange[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable company. Most relevant information is already included in Ukrainian Internet Association and the rest can be merged there. No references supplied. A Google search found no non-trivial news hits at all, and no non-trivial independent sources in the first 80 web hits. Most mentions are mere lists of networks. The one book hit is such a list. These establish that this exists, but not that it notable. Article creator A recent editor appears to have a conflict of interest. DES (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per my nom unless substantial independent coverage in reliable sources is found that clearly establishes the notability of this organization. I search online and could not find such coverage, but it might be off-line or in sources not indexed by Google. DES (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Des I don't see much difference in quality of this web page in comparison to, for instance article of the same type, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Internet_Exchange The lack of information from google is because ukrainian internet is not widespread yet. Including information about it would help spread the word about it. I will work on improving the article in the future, but want to mention that I don't see any reason for it's deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkononenko (talk • contribs) 09:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have the Ukrainian Internet Association article, I see no need for a separate article at this time. If the "ukrainian internet is not widespread yet" then perhaps the companies involved are not yet notable. As to Moscow Internet Exchange, I haven't looked at it -- perhaps it should be deleted or merged also. In general WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument. This site is created by volunteers like you and me, and it may always be that no one has noticed or gotten around to suggesting the deletion of another poor article. It may also be that there are significant differences. For example, perhaps we don't have an article on a parent organization for the Moscow Internet Exchange into which we could merge information. DES (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have other sources, perhaps not listed in Google, that can be cited to help establish Notability? Do you think this meets the standards of WP:ORG? If so, why? DES (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Wootton[edit]

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

This political candidate has not received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Of the two references, one doesn't mention him and the other is a brief mention only. The other sources are external links to websites, which do not help show notability. The subject has previously edited this article, which is probably why it reads like a press release. Fences&Windows 20:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A failed candidate in local council elections. It's hard to find a clearer fail of WP:POLITICIAN than that. As per nom, sources are nowhere near getting past WP:GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - minor functionary of a minor party. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mkativerata and Fences' points about political candidacy in local elections is legitimate if the subject were to be viewed solely as a political candidate. But clearly there are other aspects to the notability. It is incorrect to argue that sources are not valid WP:GNG - sources include the subject being featured as the major subject of an hour-long BBC4 TV documentary (BBC4 is a British channel that reaches nearly 2 million viewers per day (see http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyViewing?_s=4)), the subject's film winning a competition and appearing on BBC Newsnight (the BBC's flagship current affairs programme with many millions of viewers). I would have thought that these instances of prolonged exposure to millions of people for different reasons at different times were sufficient to establish notability, even without seperate reporting at other dates in the national Guardian and Times newspapers of the UK. Specifically with reference to Wikipedia Policy: the sources of BBC4, BBC2 Newsnight, The Guardian and The Times constitute Significant Coverage, Reliable Coverage and are obviously Independent of the subject. The differing reasons for which this guy has been on national British TV also indicate that his notability is not a "flash in the pan" of one event. Furthermore, Bearian's dismissiveness of the subject as a "minor functionary of a minor party" is obviously not only narrow but highly contestable: the subject's post appears to clearly have been a major post in which he did something major and worthy of coverage in several national newspapers, and whether or not the Green Party is a minor party is a different debate that I don't think the four of us are really qualified to adjudicate and should not necessarily lead to the Green Party and Greens not being included on Wikipedia. This article has existed for 3 years and been edited by a good dozen people without challenge. It appears that the subject himself did edit it once, but on one day and 3 years ago, so it is unlikely to be mainly autobiographical. The article seems to me to be a useful contribution. It seems unnecessary and possibly highly contentious to delete it at this time. We should take off the tag and move on. 24.186.176.173 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi there, I'm afraid the sources mentioned just don't cut it as "significant coverage in reliable sources":
      • Of the two Guardian articles, one doesn't mention him at all; the other is only an incidental mention buried in a long series of snippets.
      • The documentary seems to be about three different protesters to illustrate a protest movement in general. The document isn't about Matt Wootton. Many documentaries are made giving ordinary people as examples to illustrate a wider subject. That doesn't make the ordinary people notable. I can't see how this case is any different.
      • As for the film competition, I'm hesitant to say that producing a film that makes this list confers any notability. I can't find any coverage of the film making this list. Being a contestant (or even a winner) in a TV competition does not confer notability. This is no major film award.
Cheers--Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • hi Mkativerata. The points you make are interesting but I think incomplete, possibly because you do not previously know the person that we are talking about! I have met people from the Middle East who have never heard of Madonna or even Michael Jackson. That does not mean they are not notable. Wikipedia exists to bring new knowledge to other people, not to have knowledge deleted from it. The point you are missing about the Guardian and Times articles are that Matt Wootton created the Real Progress rebranding of the Green Party in the UK, as the Real Progress article also targeted by Fences describes. If he is not mentioned by name in every article about Real Progress that does not lower the notability on the thing he created. Also with the rebrand, I have seen this on TV and in literature when I was in the UK, that cannot be directly referenced by a URL. I think you would be making a mistake to assume that a few instances of referenced notability online actually equals no notability, rather than asking whether a few instances of referenced specific notability online might hint at greater notability in other mediums, including TV. This guy has also been interviewed on TV several times, especially on the TV News, that I wouldn't know how to reference. Deleting the whole article on him just because he's not got thousands of links about him on the internet (even though he has featured on TV which can't necessarily be referenced on the web) would just make Wikipedia a list of links of things that happen on the internet, not about the real world, where TV and things come and go, but still exist!
    • The documentary clearly IS about him; I know because I've watched it. It's about three different people, but that doesn't mean it's not about him (that's false logic: if Huey, Dewey, and Louie go to the park, that still means Louie went to the park....). If it was a documentary about 10 or 20 different people, you'd have a much better point, but since it's an hour long documentary that statistically means that 20 whole minutes of national TV was featuring him, just in that documentary. I hardly think that's insignificant. And that's just one instance of notability.
      • As for the film competition, searching the Australian google news archives seems a strange way to try to establish notability. If I search google.co.uk for newsnight "matt wootton" I get more results. Again, this was national TV. I don't see that it's the role of Wikipedia editors to take an existing article about someone who has obviously featured on TV and in newspapers that they haven't seen, and try to judge it through their eyes: you've obviously never heard of this guy, you don't care about him or probably care about any of his issues, but that doesn't mean that other people don't think he's worthy of note. I don't see why we need to have a long debate over this - if anything the entry could just do with tidying up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.176.173 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Surely a coincidence, but the day before that IP made an edit to Barclays Center in January, Matt Wootton posted a note to Twitter about the Barclays Center[5]. It is surely also a coincidence that according to Matt Wootton's Twitter[6] he is in Brooklyn at the moment, and that IP geolocates to... Brooklyn. See WP:AUTO for how one should actually proceed with writing about oneself. Fences&Windows 21:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dear Fences: thanks for the conspiracy theory. I wasn't aware the conspiracy theory was a recommended method for editing Wikipedia. Since there are 2.5 million people in Brooklyn, your assumption is not exactly watertight. I live in New York and I met Matt Wootton at a political event near the Barclays Center site because he is on a speaking tour of the US see further independent source. In fact, this is yet another reason for notability, and probably should be included in the article. If you like I will contact Matt Wootton to inform him of your accusation Fences; otherwise I suggest that you are in danger of showing bias in this matter. I suggest that for everybody's blood pressure level that personal accusations have no place on Wikipedia and this discussion is quickly becoming tainted and unproductive. If we want to spend any more time on this article it should maybe be aimed at improving it rather than throwing around accusations about its subjects 24.186.176.173 (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found his entry useful, i'd like if you could keep it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.52.48 (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To make it absolutely clear: I am the subject of the article, and I am writing from New York city. If I have say at all I would argue that deletion seems over the top. It is important that Greens and the Green Party are represented on Wikipedia and I would have thought that documenting personalities in the green movement was important. I understand however that I am not the person to further argue my case and I will accept whatever outcome transpires. I do hope the views of ordinary and unheard-from users will be taken into account, not just experieneced editors. It is surely better to have a resource than to delete it, especially when there seems to be contention over whether it meets strict criteria. With thanks, M Wootton Mattwootton1978 (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hi again; I'd like to contribute something positive to this debate by offering to edit the article n improve it. I'll do this over the next day and make it simpler, take out some of the extra color and make the notability clearer. Hopefully then the article can stay and it'll be clearer why this is a valid entry. OK? Thank you.Verdeny (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note (addressed to the new accounts and IPs) This is not a vote like you get in elections. Numbers are not counted - valid arguments are. "I found it useful" is not a valid argument. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Matt "It is important that Greens and the Green Party are represented on Wikipedia" - no, it is not. Not to those of us that edit and 'work' here. It probably is to you, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I feel there could be notability in the article, but masses of single purpose accounts appearing won't help. Those expressing views that add to the discussion will be taken into account. Those that merely say 'Keep - it's important' will not. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finished revamping the article - Hi again, OK, well I have worked on this and the material is now well-sourced, with (arguably) the most notable achievement (the Green Party rebrand) having at least 6 different references including the BBC, Guardian, Times, Wootton's website, and three articles from British marketing/advertising periodicals. The periodicals specifically mention him and quote him by name, which was a criticism before of the Guardian reference (although not of the Times). Wootton's role in the BBC4 documentary is now referenced by 3 different sources. His other documentary is referenced by the BBC website. Because of the breadth of sourcing that has met the editorial control criteria of multiple professional news/information sources, I now think that this does meet notability: his work (with his name/face attached to it) has obviously received attention from the world at large. I can only conclude that this constitutes Significant coverage (WP:GNG) from multiple sources that are Reliable (BBC, broadsheets) and Independent of the Subject. Looking at Wikipedia policy I would say there's enough for a "Presumption" of inclusion at the very least, certainly not a presumption of deletion. I've dealt earlier with an argument that it's not "flash in the pan". There doesn't appear to be any "original research" any more, and not in the bits that's I've contributed. Sure, this guy is not crazily well known, but clearly is in certain circles, and Wikipedia policy caters for that possibility. Although some might say this casts doubt on Notability (but then see effect of Rebrand and reporting by BBC, Times etc etc), I would argue it also puts him at the least within the category of People who are relatively unknown (WP:NPF). Maybe this article should still be shortened, but I don't really think it all should be deleted. I hope you'll agree it has sufficient notability from trusted secondary sources (BBC, broadsheet papers etc) to secure retention. Thanks guys.Verdeny (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non notable party functionary for a short period. Fails WP:POLITICIAN by any measure and secondary coverage is very minimal. - Galloglass 10:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can I also draw to the attention of contributors to this discussion the following Wikipedia policy WP:ILLEGIT regarding the use of multiple accounts. - Galloglass 11:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • References? Very little there that meets Wikipedia's requirements - if anything at all. Blogs and own-site links count for nothing. The Guardian article makes no mention of Wootton and doesn't even link the Green Party with the protest - which gets a one-liner mention anyway. The BBC reference does mention Wootton, but gives no indication that he's anything more than an activist - which is not an inherently notable position. (More space is given in the BBC release to the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army, which I find quite understandable.) The Alex Cox site says "Alex Cox has been asked to direct the 2006 Green Party Election Broadcast for local government elections in England in April 2006.". Fair enough. It doesn't mention Wootton at all. To me, this is not a satisfactory set of references for Wooton. On an election flyer, it would look OK - and who would check them? Note that I am not yet stating that I find him non-notable. I feel there's more chance than most unelected candidates come up with - but chance and result aren't the same (as most lottery ticket buyers would agree...). BrandRepublic is about the neatest thing I can see here. Mad.co.uk (which at first I expected to be the UK edition of a favourite magazine of my younger days) won't let you in without registering or free trialling, neither of which I am in the habit of doing in the course of investigations. Peridon (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The sources used in the article are mainly from the subject's website or Blogspot, neither of which are independent sources. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. SNOW delete--no sources can be found, no papers in Scopus or Google scholar, DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Noah Shaikh[edit]

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

This appears to be a dubious BLP. A Google search doesn't confirm anything stated here. Does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Warrah (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless credible sources turn up. At the moment it's unsourced borderline spam. "Category: Famous People" is a nice touch. Appears to be an autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I also can't find any sources that demonstrate notability via a Google search. If someone can dig up some sources, I might reconsider. PDCook (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Nom. Seems to me to fail WP:NOTE. Avicennasis @ 06:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete this. Whether it really deserves a stand-alone article is not clear from the discussion here but can and should be discussed on the relevant talk pages since a merge/redirect can and should be done without prior deletion anyway. Regards SoWhy 14:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Paulie Germani[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Neelix (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into a list of minor Sopranos' characters. Major franchise, poor deletion rationale. Note that there are 2 Google News hits and 2 Google Books search. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator - My express reason for deletion is stated concisely, however it is not poor rationale. Topics must pass the notability criterion in order for an article to be justified. Of the two Google Books hits mentioned, one is a list of characters without any accompanying information and the other states no more than which actor portrays the character in question. I have not been able to find any hits on Google News, despite Jclemens' statement that there are two. "Little Paulie Germani", "Paulie Germani", and "Paul Germani" all come up with nothing. Neelix (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes the notability is questionable, but I think it barely qualifies. The problem with a merge is that there is already multiple Sopranos character listings that are very long, so separate articles were created. --Ted87 (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the character is not individually notable, then the amount of information about him should not exceed what is included on the list. Any supplimentary information, namely that included on this article, should simply be removed. What substantial, independent, reliable sources cause this character to qualify for individual notability? Neelix (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant character is very important fiction. when the fiction is of this great cultural significance, more than just the key characters should get articles. The application of the notability criteria and when exceptions are to be made is to be decided by the community. This is one of the cases where"other things exist" is a relevant argument, showing how the community applies it in cases like this . DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remember that "other things exist" is not "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow," but rather an essay which "may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints". No matter what essays happen to be written expressing different views, all Wikipedia articles must adhere to the general notability guideline, something which this article does not. Neelix (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters. Editors are free to merge verifiable material. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 08:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Heffley[edit]

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

I have attempted to redirect this page, but it seems that many are against a redirect or merge, so here we are. This page is nothing but fancruft; it fails to describe the subject in any real-world context, and a quick lookaround shows me that it most likely fails WP:NOTE if any were added. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and redirect. Sorry, I forgot to say that it should be redirected (to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series), as suggested by Whpq) after deletion. It is quite likely that somebody might search on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article stinks, but I am looking for reliable sources. 209.175.117.2 (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nominator: a non-encyclopedic fanpage. Not notable enough to warrant a page on his own. Jarkeld (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have the same thoughts as the one above; there isn't enough in the Wimpy Kid series to actually write a full-fledged article on the character, even if he is the main one. Letsy2 (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series). If the redirects are overriden with fancruft, then it can be made a protected redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with you. This article looks like a 3rd grade child's book report. This article is just fancruft. Somebody500 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of characters in Diary of a Wimpy Kid series; it was merged before, so why not merge it again? 66.99.23.194 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to section on List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters. The character is not individually notable and therefore I agree with Whpq's suggestion that the redirect be protected in the event that someone turns it back into a separate article. Neelix (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to List of characters in Diary of a Wimpy Kid series. Too much OR, not enough WP:V. It fails to describe the subject in any real-world context. And Synthesis-- it's full of synthesis. The one source listed is FaceBook. Dlohcierekim 19:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and redirect. By any standard, this is excessive detail. It need not be deleted first, because nothing here actually needs to be hidden--it's just unsuitable as a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of characters in Diary of a Wimpy Kid series (with the history preserved under the redirect) so that editors can use the content in a merge if they so desire. Cunard (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Andhra Pradesh#Religion. The consensus is clear that there is no reason for this article to exist but is in favor to keep at least a bit of the information at another article. Regards SoWhy 13:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in Andhra Pradesh[edit]

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

This author has created so many pages with "Christianity in [an Indian city/state]". All of them says "Christianity is a minority in [an Indian city/state]" which is obviously WP:UNDUE. Vipin Hari || talk 19:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. SoWhy 13:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in Goa[edit]

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

This author has created so many pages with "Christianity in [an Indian city/state]". All of them says "Christianity is a minority in [an Indian city/state]" which is obviously WP:UNDUE. Vipin Hari || talk 19:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:CRYSTAL apply here? The article doesn't contain any predictions. "Christianity is a minority in Goa, but it will soon become the majority" - that would be crystal-balling. StAnselm (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The existing articles cover the subject already.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The present bunch of "Christianity in X state" looks silly but this one deserves a keep as Christians still form a singnificant part of Goa's population (about 30%). While Roman Catholicism in Goa deals specifically with the largest denomination, this article could also talk about the other minor denominations.AFAIK there is a small native Marthomite population in Goa.Goan Catholics is a people-article and should not be equated with the rest of articles. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've done the relevant editing in preparation for a merge from Christianization of Goa. There still needs more work done in summarising Goa Inquisition, though. StAnselm (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The article should be redirected to Christianization of Goa.--Sanfy (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that article is about the process, which logically fits as a "history" section of this article. StAnselm (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that it's been expanded significantly (from one sentences to a couple pages), talking both about the history and the present-day. Vmenkov (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant subject , suitable article. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of CZW events[edit]

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

Just a list of every single event this tiny indy fed has ever had (almost none of which are notable enough to ever have articles, and only 1 actually currently does). Not that these affect rather the article should exist, but the list is also in terrible shape (only 1 source, no info on the actual events, etc.) TJ Spyke 19:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG guidelines Mike Cline (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Femina Potens Art Gallery[edit]

Femina Potens Art Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
To remove the misfires add "art" in the resulting search box as a secondary term. Here is a possible origin of the galleries name although they might spell it out for themselves somewhere. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ample sources to meet WP:N. Ty 19:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy XV[edit]

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

Essentially the article concerns itself is based on a unannounced video game that refers substantial referencing opinions of those associated to the franchise. A merge discussion has taken place, however some have felt (see below) the article should still be deleted as it appears to be heavily violating WP:FUTURE. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous discussion regarding merging was opened here; Talk:Final Fantasy XV andWikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix#Concern in FFXV_page. I will point out as nominator I prefer a merge, but this has been twice suggested for deletion and for keeping the article despite this option so it would be fruitful for the community to weigh in an the future of the article and wether it should or shouldnt be deleted. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the informations is purely speculation from the sources and once the game is revealed, the information would not be useful to be kept.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article itself says why, no such game has been announced. Hell, Final Fantasy XIV was only announced back in June. Square Enix has not said anything about a Final Fantasy XV. There is nothing but speculation, so nothing worth merging. TJ Spyke 19:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not yet exist, is not yet notable. JBsupreme (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article based purely on speculation. Fin©™ 22:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reasons given in above discussions and whatever reason the contents are deemed useful by anyone, they are open to put the sources in other articles as they are open to do even if a merge is not suggested.(and it will face other criteria and editor views but it is not the concern of this AfD) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 04:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT WANT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.48.236 (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do you not want the deletion to happen, or do you not want the article? This is the perfect example of incomplete statement that confuses people of what you really want. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 02:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Final Fantasy games#Main series for now, leaving whatever scant info there is to the entry in the table found there. No need to delete, since at the very least it will be a useful search term if people are talking about it already. Tarc (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • we aren't a guide for people. just because people talk about it, doesn't mean it exist and deserves mention at all.in the end once the game is mad,e all this speculation will be gone and removed. there is no point having any of this information in any articleBread Ninja (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize this isn't a discussion about a redirect, but since that is what I am proposing that this be turned into, IMO Wikipedia:R#KEEP part 5 applies. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no official announcement has been made, this page is composed almost entirely of fan speculation. Keytar Shredder : Talk To Me 23:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tarc, just because one finds it "useful" doesn't mean it automatically should be redirect. that rule i find very vague. still if you think about it carefully, how usefull will this information be for a Wikipedia?. (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess s/he is only stating the redirect is useful, not the information. The effect would be if someone typing in FFXV or Final Fantasy XV as a search word, they will be led to the FF main article. That I think is a compromise I am willing to accept, at least to prevent more dispute. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry i misunderstood. sometimes when people ask for redirects, you get the information moved aswell.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a redirect to the article noted above, yes. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fabula Nova Crystal Ball...--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Like You[edit]

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

Article for this album allready exists. Wintonian (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article is about a song not an album. Song not released yet. Nothing to merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no question this is complete WP:Crystal and speuclation. absolute fancruft with no sources.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable song, no evidence that it will be released as a single, and if it is, why would the video not begin filming for another two months and not be completed till the autumn? Music videos don't normally take four to five months to make.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources at all, nothing to confirm this will be getting a release, completely made up. Spyka (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Thutha Rai Bahadar. Any useful information from the article can be extracted from the page history. It's clear though that while an article is justified, we do not need two for the same subject. Regards SoWhy 13:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thutha rai bahadar, kharian[edit]

Thutha rai bahadar, kharian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No citations, and I don't see the nobility. There isn't a single relevant result in Google, Google books, Google news, etc. I can hardly tell what the article is talking about in the first place. —EMS24 18:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't know - According to g-maps, there is a place called "Thutha rai bahadar" and it pinpoints a place in the Kharian province that doesn't have any name, yet there appears to be a significant village there (perhaps two) - [9]. In some countries g-maps can be incomplete and not have name designations placed on top of the places on the maps yet. If it's a real place, I'd say "keep" automatically. Obviously re-write as well. If it's real, I'd suggest reducing this to a workable stub. --Oakshade (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Redirect to Thutha Rai Bahadar per below. --Oakshade (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to older duplicate article Thutha Rai Bahadar (which is badly in need of attention) or just delete as an unlikely search term, since most of the barely intelligible content is unsourced. Populated places pretty much always, and rightly, survive AfD per WP:OUTCOMES#Places. Additional Google hits can be obtained by spelling the first part of the name "Thotha" and/or spelling the last part "Bahadur". [Later note: I've reverted the edits by the creator of this article to the original Thutha Rai Bahadar article, so it looks somewhat better now.] Deor (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lotus (Fallen Angels demo)[edit]

Black Lotus (Fallen Angels demo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This band has three early demo albums and articles for each have apparently been AfD'ed many times, deleted, then recreated by same user. One demo article is currently being redirected to Sonic Syndicate and that should be the solution here too. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fall from Heaven. "Black Lotus" has not received coverage in reliable sources except for a very brief mention at Blabbermouth.net. Someone at the other AfD discussion has suggested salt after these demo articles are deleted and redirected to the band article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - see also old combined AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fall From Heaven (redirect decision under slightly different article title). DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not established etc etc, see my previous !votes on the subject(s). Rehevkor ✉ 01:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable demo with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - this article previously deleted here. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - evidence is mounting that articles for the band's three early demo albums have been repeatedly deleted and re-created under slightly different names. Would WP:SALT be an effective remedy? DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 by PeterSymonds. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gerard Windmann[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP that is almost certainly a hoax—online searching for various combinations of name variants and occupations turns up absolutely nothing on this person. (Curiously, there is a Richard Windmann in the Dallas–Fort Worth area who came from New Orleans, whereas the supposed subject of this article was born in New Orleans and the IP who supplied most of the content resolves to the Dallas–Fort Worth area. Couldn't be the same guy, though, since he's a specialist in "computer/information/network security" and there's no evidence of his having been a jockey or a matador.) My prod removed by a second IP. Deor (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. "American matador" is a dead giveaway. --Seduisant (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This article's talk page says it is being worked on bu the "University of Madrid", and I origanlly gave them benefit of the doubt, but it seems overly suspicious now. Also, according to 1990 census results, there is not even 100 people with the surname Windmann. And considering that 1 in 535 people are named Richard, compounded with the similar locations, leads me to believe this is a total hoax. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Dark Tranquillity. Consensus is definitely that this album does not warrant an article, however there are valid suggestions that this be merged/redirected and there are not objections to that possibility from those arguing for deletion. It's unclear to me whether there is actually anything to merge beyond what is already mentioned in the Dark Tranquillity article (hence just a redirect for now), however if anyone wants to undertake that they can do so and obviously find any needed info in the article history. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dying Fragments[edit]

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

Spotted on patrol. Limited release of this album coupled with only a track listing on the sole reference tells me that there's no notability. It may be speedyable under A9, but I'm giving it a shot here. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Busted Shoes and Broken Hearts: A Film About Lowlight[edit]

Busted Shoes and Broken Hearts: A Film About Lowlight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable documentary about a non-notable band. Gnews returns no hits, Google search returns only Wiki mirror sites. Article does not assert or indicate notability, unable to even verify that the film is made or that the information in the article is correct. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unnotable film with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources and its topic is a band too unnotable for its own article. Fails WP:NF and WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Jersey Syndicate[edit]

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

No sources and fails all points of WP:MUSIC. The page makes some pretty wild claims (like sharing the stage with very notable bands such as Twisted Sister, Warrant, etc), but fails to back them up. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 14:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. An unsigned local band formed in 2006 that hasn't even put out an album yet has performed with a pantheon of famous bands? Sounds unlikely in the extreme. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question- Out of curiosity, was any attempt made to contact the commenter in the previous AFD who asked what could be done to improve the article? I have no vote on the article itself, but it seems like they were new and wanted to know what they could do to bring the article up to wiki standards. Allowing userfication perhaps might be a viable option, if the article can be made into a decent stub. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added a note to the user's talk page as requested by the admin who closed the last debate, explaining why it was being deleted. If he can find sources, I have no problem voting keep, but I find it extremely unlikely that a band who has never released an album, gone on a tour or been in a magazine has played along side the bands listed, so I doubt that references would come up. I'm trying to assume good faith on those claims, but it's difficult. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 16:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In addition (I just noticed this, so sorry for the double comment), but the article lists them as having played two days at the first Rocklahoma festival, yet the page for Rocklahoma does not, in fact, show them as playing there for one day, let alone a record-setting two as claimed. If these guys were famous enough to play alongside all the bands listed, wouldn't you think they would be notable enough to be on the official Rocklahoma set list? Not to mention, all of this, and they are only three years old as a band and aren't signed to a record. Again, assuming good faith, but it's definitely suspicious. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 17:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Ali Abbas[edit]

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

Not clear how this person is notable. Includes links to a number of websites which Wikipedia blocks because of a history of spam. RadioFan (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doubtless this is a vanity page. The author's "accomplishments" amount to writing for some open web sites (i.e. sites that accept all writings). The "recent accomplishments" section lists a number of honors that are meaningful perhaps only to other members of the sites he writes for. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment forgot to mention, it's an autobiography.--RadioFan (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UCHUG[edit]

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

The organization this article is based upon fails WP:N (it fails WP:ORG and receives zero non-trivial Google news hits under its full name or the acronym). The article was recently proded and seconded, but then merged/redirected to a new section of United Church of Canada in a good faith effort to save what that editor thought might be useful text. After discussing on the talk page, however, the text saved from this article and placed into the receiving article was removed as not worthy of inclusion in the United Church of Canada article (and as evidenced by the talk, not even the editor who saved the text disagrees). That left UCHUG as a redirect to a non-existent section of an article with no clear connection to the acronym. I then RfDed the redirect here. An editor objected to using RfD to delete what had in the recent past been an article. So, per that editor's suggestion, I restored UCHUG to the state it had been in before it was merged (except that I removed the prod), and here we are at AfD. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Uchug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Novaseminary (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nothing to establish notability, and so minor even a merge was rejected. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked egg curve[edit]

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

Unreferenced and I was unable to find any sources under the name given. There is a web page for the curve under a different name, [10], but this site is self published and does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability or reliability. RDBury (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Algebraic formulas can generate an infinite variety of curves. Giving one a name does not automatically mean that it is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article about it. Edison (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references, no hits on mathscinet, no hits on google other than wikipedia mirrors, does not appear in the long list of curves in Cundy and Rolletts book (and I've never heard of it). r.e.b. (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be a neologism; I've never heard of this, and this is my area. Ozob (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  07:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia[edit]

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

Non-notable Internet encyclopedia with <10,000 articles. Most coverage is from Wikimedia projects or Facebook. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Minor wiki without sufficient independent coverage. MBisanz talk 06:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is about the first wikipedia directed to Egyptian readers, developing quickly and caused a lot of controversy even during proposal stage, starting debate that is referenced using independent sources including an article published in Al-Ahram Hebdo (Hebdo.ahram.org .eg). It also has more articles than the Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia wich has a page on enwikipedia.--Ghaly (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Wikipedia Masri is not only written in the language of the Egyptians for the Egyptian readers but it is also a secular wiki, something very important in a region dominated by religious and fanatical torment. Masri wiki came under attack from these corners, but it took the challenge and grew steadily. It would be really sad and very bad for the intellectual world if it be deleted. Please show me a historical article on egyptian wiki that was taken over from another project. On the contrary, other projects copied articles from masri wiki, as it is, in Egyptian. Samsam22 (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Deletion is not necessary when an article can be converted to a redirect -- and per WP:BEFORE, unnecessary deletions are to be avoided.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are independent sources that discuss this Wikipedia -- mostly blogs, but at least some people have taken notice of the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, for better or for worse. In the past I have recommended redirecting articles about other language Wikipedias to List of Wikipedias because of a lack of independent sources. That's not the case here. By the way, participants in this discussion should keep in mind that all we are discussing here is whether the English Wikipedia should have a separate article about the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia does not have articles about all other languages' editions of Wikipedia, just some of them, and the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia itself is not going to go away regardless of how this discussion ends. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Article in English Wikipedia about a sister project i.e. Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia is not violating any of the policies set by Wikipedia, It is not violating any copyrights, it is not an advertising for the website as Egyptian Wikipedia has already created a lot of discussions and arguments both on Meta pages and in many other blogs outside the wikimedia foundation.The rate of growth of Egyptian wikipedia should be taken into consideration as creating 5080 articles in only one year and few months should be meaning that many users are interested in contrbituing towards its growth,Egyptian Arabic wikipedia has 7,996 registered users , and the article in question has been edited 107 times by 32 different users all these little pieces of information can be put together to make a bigger more wholisic picture of sister Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia project that merits an article of its own.--Ramsis II (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect (per S Marshall), (see below) We need reliable sources that provide significant coverage, and are independent of the subject. I would like to see some keep arguments that point to policy and guidelines, rather than WP:ILIKEIT. 'I like it' is not a reason to keep an article. Currently there are 16 citations in the article.
    • #1 and #2 are wikipedia/wikimedia links - not reliable.
    • #3 is a very passing mention, not significant coverage.
    • #4 does not mention the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia.
    • #5 looks to be a good source, but the article is called Debate between the Egyptian bloggers on Wikipedia Egyptian, which makes it an opinion article, and not able to establish notability.
    • #6 is Yahoo Answers (come on... seriously?)
    • #7, #8 & #9 are blogs, not reliable.
    • #10 is a dead link.
    • #11 - moheet.com seems to be a good source.
    • #12 & #13 are facebook pages.
    • #14 is a personal webpage - not reliable.
    • #15 & #16 are blogs.
This leaves us with one reliable source, Moheet.com. Based on this, the article can read

Wikipedia Masry has been subject to controversy from the start, causing arguments between supporter and opposers

Bottom line, we need more reliable sources and less WP:ILIKEIT as arguments in this discussion. I didn't find any more sources in my searching, so unless someone can produce some, policy, and community consensus indicate redirection or deletion. Joshua Scott (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref no 10 is not a dead end , and it is a very reliable source Al-Ahram is a well known newspapaer, and ref 5 is a good source, this means three good sources, not just one. What is the problem with having yahoo answer and google answers as ref for notability? It is notable enoughto cause such a debate. The argument is ; does wikipedia masry meet notability requirements or not? . The other thing is has the decision been made already to delete the article no matter what is written?--Ghaly (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Yahoo/Google Answers, these don't establish notability because anyone could post anything that they wish (within the Terms of Use). Thus, if I were to post a question about my uncle Bob, would he suddenly be notable? Not a chance. You should take some time to read WP:RS and WP:V if you would like more information on what is considered reliable sources. To answer the last question you had: see WP:AfD#How to discuss an AfD, we are determining the fate through this discussion. Nothing has been decided yet. — Joshua Scott (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment. I fully understand your point ,however, there are many other sources , that you recognise as reliable, talking about wikipedia masry. --Ghaly (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Al-Ahram Hebdo source is a reliable source and shows that there is interest and controversy regarding this topic in Egypt, and the Shorouk News source concerning the same seems legit to me (I google-translated their "about" section and the website seems strung to an actual newspaper). Hekerui (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable --Dyaa (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my !vote to Keep given Ghaly's find of another good source. There seems to be some debate over whether Egyptian Arabic is a separate language, or just a dialect. The creation of the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia seems to have caused a notable amount of debate over whether or not it should have been created, for this dialect/language reason. There seems to be 2-3 reliable sources which are primarily about the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, which satisfies WP:GNG —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 13:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are now sufficient sources to show the notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this article from the Al-Ahram Hebdo and this article from the Shorouk News. These two sources, as pointed out by Hekerui, establish notability. Cunard (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. One keep !vote provides no rationale, the other bases their rationale in part on the comments of another editor who, after an investigation, in the end suggested the article be deleted. Given that and the other comments there seems to be a consensus for deletion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal (2008 film)[edit]

Brutal (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable orphaned amateur film. The film was screened locally in 2008 but was never widely distributed. Non-notable per WP:NF since it meets none of the criteria; should it be widely released at some point, it may meet criterion #1 but it's unlikely to satisfy any of the rest of the criteria since it would have to either win awards or become historically significant. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I pretty much echo everything as above per the nom. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by QueenJenny (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC) — QueenJenny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - It also managed to garner a review on a specialty site but I don't see this film meeting any of our notability criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The currently unsourced article makes reference to a review and interview in Fangoria, mention that it was written up by Horror Society Film Festival.... and apart from the non RS JobLo, it did receive other coverage... Express Milwaukee, On Milwaukee 1, On Milwaukee 2, reviews at such genre sites as Horror Society, and listings at such as Fantastiquezine (French) and Cinema Horror (Italian). I believe that for a low-budget indie horror film, it has received more than might be expected. I'm gonna go have a hand at cleaning it up and sourcing. Back in a bit. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Reporting back. I gave the article some much-needed cleanup and sourcing. The Fangoria link is dead. If someone can find the reviews and interviews and add then as sources it might squeek by as a weak keep. Note the filmaker's Myspace [11] indicates that the film has screened and at multiple festivals, but I cannot confirm this. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per two full profiles used by the article, plus other evidence of notability mentioned by User:MichaelQSchmidt.--PinkBull 20:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per MQS above. In the absence of other indicia of notability, I don't think that the sources are enough. They are quite close, but I don't see that they clear the bar of multiple, non-trivial, independent and reliable. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dancemakers[edit]

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

Stub describes a non-notable topic in a non-encyclopedic way. Possibly intended as an advert for this dance studio.

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shirtlifter[edit]

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

WP is not Myspace. This article, created 2005, appears to be an autobiography. The article is poorly sourced or relies on primary sources, and many biographical details are completely unvetifiable. A Gsearch gave 182 unique hits which reveal almost nothing but directory links or own website. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability anywhere, in the article or otherwise. In fact it qualifies for a speedy deletion, as it makes no serious claim of significance, but after this much time another week is not a big deal. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually it does not qualify for a speedy deletion, because it claims the musician had a series of "hit singles." It remains to be determined whether any of his work actually qualifies as a "hit" or satisfies WP:BIO. No opinion pending someone evaluating the claims. Anyone with a PC can "release albums" and may have his own, not widely shared, opinion that they were "hits." Edison (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For speedy deletion under A7 we could argue about whether the article makes a "credible claim of significance or importance", that is to say whether the claim, in its context in the article, is credible. However, that is irrelevant, since it is not proposed for speedy deletion, and what matters for this AfD is whether the claim can be supported by reliable sources. The claim that the recordings in question were "hits" is based on "Top 40, CBC Galaxie Electronic". CBC Galaxie Electronic is an obscure online "radio station". I can find no evidence anywhere that the station does anything other than plug Shirtlifter's music. Not only can anyone with a PC, as Edison says, "release albums", but they can also set up a self promotional web site that makes their recordings available and call that site an "online radio station". No reliable source that I can find treats these recordings as "hits". These recordings are not "hit singles" by any reasonable interpretation of the expression. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't have an article about this person, but actually "Shirtlifter" is a plausible search term. (At least in British English, it's a somewhat old-fashioned pejorative term for a male homosexual.) I don't think it should be a redlink. -- Perhaps redirect to some appropriate list of slurs? (We have a "list of ethnic slurs" and a "list of religious slurs" but I have not found a "list of homophobic slurs". Presumably one exists?)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any reliable source for that meaning of the word. I am willing to accept that it exists, but it must be very obscure. It does not seem likely to be used as a search term by somebody wanting information about homosexuality. Is there really a point to introducing such a list? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per JamesBWatson for failure to satisfy WP:N or any subsidiary guideline. Edison (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus that this is original research and does not belong anywhere in the encyclopedia. Material will thus be deleted, but there's no prohibition against User:Erik or anyone else recreating as a redirect to John Carpenter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse Trilogy[edit]

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

Article reads like an essay, and would appear to be mainly original research. If all the apparent OR is removed, there's nothing left in the article. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a violation of WP:OR, existing information is used to produce a synthesis that advances a new position. Should reliable third party sources exist that discuss the actual trilogy (not each individual film), then these can be used to create an appropriate article. Currently, I'm unable to find any such published materials. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to John Carpenter. The term does exist but I do not believe that any description of this grouping warrants a stand-alone article. "Apocalypse Trilogy" is actually already mentioned at the John Carpenter article, and its context can be expanded there. The "Connections" section is particularly inappropriate as it is original research. Erik (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Neighbours characters#E. Merging material (there seems to be some in the history) would be acceptable per the consensus here, and in the future editors should feel free to do so. However right now the target list article is not set up to give any information beyond character and actor name and dates said character was on the show, so a merge is simply not possible at the moment. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Evans[edit]

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

Short lived soap character with no significance outside the show. The article remained a single line stub for 4 years which is a strong evidence that there are no reliable sources to cover the subject independently of the show, or even within the show. Magioladitis (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Totally agree with nom, but think that the page should be a re-direct to List of Neighbours characters#E and remove the wiki-link. Codf1977 (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect - Agree with nom, no reliable refs available. As one of the Neighbours editors, even I feel that there is no need to create articles for characters who only are recurring for a short time. Hopefully I have now found a way that will stop unreferenced stubs from being created in future. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 16:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Neighbours characters as suggested. No indication that this particular character has any special notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • merge The present list is not sufficient coverage -- there needs to be enough information to give some idea of the role. a sentence or two would be sufficient. I heartily agree with merging articles like this, but to leave it as a bare statement of the name and the actor is not sufficient information. I think that every character in that list should have such expansion, whether or not it justifies a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge. Clearly not notable for an article in its own right but there may be some content to warrant inclusion in a merge. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Animaniacs characters#Slappy Squirrel. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slappy Squirrel[edit]

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

Like Chicken Boo, whose article was deleted last week, this Animaniacs character fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Neelix (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight Theatre (Waterford, Michigan)[edit]

Starlight Theatre (Waterford, Michigan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

stub since its creation in 2006, this article is sourced only by an EL to the theater. A Gsearch finds only 195 unique hits, mostly very local trivial mentions or directory listings that I don't see how it passes WP:N Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of Future GPX Cyber Formula Characters . –Juliancolton | Talk 18:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Earnhardt[edit]

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

Entirely non-notable secondary character. Fails WP:NOTE and contains nothing more than a plot summary, trivia, and original research. Potential copyvio as well. —Farix (t | c) 11:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've when ahead and remove the blatantly copyvio material from the article. —Farix (t | c) 11:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Future GPX Cyber Formula Characters, I have since cleaned up the article a bit and added merge tags on the other character articles for the series that cite no references or sources and appear to be all be in universe. So if this is to be merged I would recommend the others be as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge because it fails any inclusions guidelines and i wish the very best luck to the editor tackling them into a list. --KrebMarkt 07:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A continued merge discussion would be encorage on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Bath Babes[edit]

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

This article fails to establish the notability of its subject as required by Wikipedia general notability guideline: No significant coverage in reliable sources is provided. The external sources provided to GameFAQs and MobyGames are far from GNG requirements, generally because they list every game and specially because they show no evidence of notability. Fleet Command (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google news search shows [12] which translated says
"A study by VideoGamePriceCharts revealed that video games considered rare in the United States can cost up to $ 20 thousand (approximately U.S. $ 34 thousand) each. Dentre as peças mais valiosas estariam títulos desenvolvidos para o NES (Nintendo Entertainment System), console da geração 8 bits dos anos 80 que vendeu mais de 60 milhões de unidades ao redor do mundo. Among the more valuable items were written for the NES (Nintendo Entertainment System) console generation 8 bits of the 80 that sold more than 60 million units around the world.

» Bubble Bath Babes "Bubble Bath Babes" This game is at the top of that list. So, it made the top of the charts, and was reported in a news source. A picture from Bubble Bath Babes is also used in this article. Dream Focus 15:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Objection: Provided source does not provide any significant coverage of the subject of the article. A mere statistical stance between equally non-notable products and a picture does not make the subject of the article merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DreamFocus' arguments and due to the fact that these games are well known within the community to be expensive collector items due to their limited releases as unlicensed games. The fact that they fly in the face of Nintendo's family-friendly image is also frequently noted. Here are three examples of on-point RSes: (1) an essay by Mark Methenitis, (2) an article by J.C. Fletcher of Joystiq, (3) CVG article. Other RSes could almost certainly be found. At best I'd compromise in favor of a merge, but deletion is not warranted. -Thibbs (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am afraid your sources are far from WP:RS. In case of Joystiq, even Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Situational sources agrees with me. In addition, your source #1 does not provide any significant coverage on the subject of the article. Fortunately, CVG source is reliable and has provided a coverage. But is this coverage significant? Fleet Command (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Far from" WP:RS? I don't agree. To quote the situational limitation on Joystiq listed at WP:VG/RS, "use of this site and its affiliates should be carefully considered. Often, it is best to demonstrate the reliability of the individual authors sourced." There is apparently no restriction on the use of this source apart from a careful consideration of it. After researching who the author is (arguably regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question), it is my considered view that this source is usable. Regarding my source #1, one wonders why the author has included the term "bubble bath babes" as one of the merely 11 tags for the article if it is indeed as unrelated as you seem to believe. -Thibbs (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Weak keep - I don't think the coverage presented is quite significant enough, but the sources certainly make this verifiable. Possible merge targets could be Panesian (if kept) or Adult video games; The joystiq source is actually about "unlicensed games", which could be a good topic for a new article and a merge target. Marasmusine (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like some kind of exploitation porn that is very harmful to young people.QueenJenny (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not censored. Reach Out to the Truth 20:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia has to cover every Nintendo game (Japanese, European, North American, or otherwise). That means covering every genre and every age group from preschool education ABC/123 games to adult porno video games. If your great-grandchildren are to have a complete knowledge about what was released for the Nintendo Entertainment System, this article must stay in as a part of Wikipedia. GVnayR (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objection: Wrong! Wikipedia is not a directory and does not have to keep such a covering. Only notable material merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you actually read WP:NOTDIR? What part of it do you think is being violated here? Dream Focus 07:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is very simple Dream Focus: Wikipedia is not a collection of articles which contain nothing but the most basic statistical data of all computer software or a certain genre of computer software. Such a thing is a directory and Wikipedia is not a directory. The threshold for inclusion of an article is notability. Judging by all the AfDs I've seen you in, you are perfectly aware of what I just said. Fleet Command (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you insist, it is item 7. Fleet Command (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Read the example provided. That's about politicians mostly. It doesn't affect this article, which is no different than other video game articles. Four people say its notable enough to keep, you want it deleted, and one more person says delete but not for a valid reason. Dream Focus 19:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

            • What example? Did you see the correct item?

              Let's finish this play with words. GVnayR (talk · contribs) said:

              "Wikipedia has to cover every Nintendo game." — GVnayR (talk · contribs)

              WP:NOTDIR reads:

              "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." — WP:NOTDIR

              That means Wikipedia does not necessarily have to have an article for every Nintendo games.

              GVnayR (talk · contribs) said:

              "That means covering every genre and every age group from preschool education ABC/123 games to adult porno video games. If your great-grandchildren are to have a complete knowledge about what was released for the Nintendo Entertainment System, this article must stay in as a part of Wikipedia." — GVnayR (talk · contribs)

              WP:NOTDIR reads:

              "Wikipedia articles are not: [~snip~] 7. A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight." — WP:NOTDIR

              Dream Focus, I am officially putting it to you that you are not acting in good faith and are trying to find every possible excuse to undermine me. I have faith that the closing administrator is not going to turn a blind eye this malevolent behavior. Fleet Command (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

              • Assume good faith and stop making accusations here and elsewhere. Your last comments at 7 Sins[14] were highly inappropriate. You seem to be convinced everyone is out to get you. And listing of games is not a directory. The dictionary defines directory [15] as "an alphabetical or classified list (as of names and addresses)". The directory rule is concerning list articles. Dream Focus 12:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

                • You said:

                  Your last comments at 7 Sins[16] were highly inappropriate.

                  My last comment in 7 Sins AfD was:

                  Weak Keep: Oh, wait! I see the article now. The ACTUAL reviews are cited! That's it: Notability asserted! Withdrawing from nomination. Thanks for the notice, Someone Another. Bless you. Fleet Command (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

                  Why do think thanking someone else is inappropriate? Because he could save the article and you couldn't?

                  The directory rule is concerning list articles.

                  Nonsense.

                  Fleet Command (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Merge would be to Adult video games. In reading this conversation, the only actual attempt to source this that I've seen by a Keep nominator is the game's appearance on a list (which is clearly not "coverage") and some Joystiq.com links which, as has been pointed out above, is not strong sourcing (it's listed in the games sourcing guidelines as a situational source) -- and I would point out too that even the Joystiq.com content isn't actually non-trivial coverage of this game (I'd counsel anyone reviewing this AfD to actually read the Joystiq content), it mentions this game as an example of what the content is covering...Adult video games or ownership of rare games. Yes, the game's title appears in the title of one of the posts. That post, in particular, is the closest of anything being mentioned to actual coverage of the game itself (and not coverage of a category of games that this game happens to be a part of). This is why I would absolutely support merging this content, in the form of a one or two sentence mention, into the article on Adult video games. I have some bias in favor of deletion but I have no bias against a merge, and I'm not here to blindly find ways to exclude content from Wikipedia. I might even, in the interest of finding some way to meaningful consensus here, strike my "delete" opinion and just say "merge." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find this to be reasonable. It's not ideal in my view, but I'm drifting more toward merge on all three topics myself. I'd favor a merge of the games into the parent company article, but I recognize that some find the coverage of them to be too trivial. A merge into adult video games if done properly would be considerably lower on my list of preferences, but infinitely superior to plain deletion of what is clearly a sourceable item of notable video game history. -Thibbs (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright. You have my green line. I believe coming to a compromise is sometimes more important than zealously enforcing the policy in its strictest of forms. Fleet Command (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the article meets the requirements, as I believe it does, it should be kept. If the closing administrator says otherwise, then it gets deleted. If you don't think any of the articles are notable on their own, why would you feel differently about having all three together? Dream Focus 12:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because "I believe coming to a compromise is sometimes more important than zealously enforcing the policy in its strictest of forms." Fleet Command (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anything merged to a list would have to prove itself notable to remain on that list, or it'd be removed. And if its notable, it'd be able to have its own article. Merge would by the same as delete in this instance. Dream Focus 12:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, that's incorrect. Content in an article merely has to be verifiable, not notable. Notability is the hurdle that article topics have to clear, not the content in an article. So, no, a merge does not equate to a delete in this instance, not in the slightest. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd like to think so, but I've seen too many articles have entries removed by aggressive people saying they didn't have independent coverage so shouldn't be there. This happens CONSTANTLY. Dream Focus 22:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree, this does happen. However, the risk of bad faith editors erroneously removing content that was merged to the article based on consensus from an AfD is hardly a legitimate reason to not do the merge -- that's a risk with any action on Wikipedia. If it helps, I will happily include any merge target on my watchlist and make sure nobody screws with the merged content. I imagine you'd do the same, given your obvious interest. I'm sincerely not interested in having this content moved over and then having some editor unfamiliar with the situation delete it -- it's verifiable content, and has a home here! It is plainly verifiable in terms of content to be included in an article...just not (in my opinion) as its own article. As you might note from my user page, I'm a video game fan, and I actually have a personal soft spot for obscure NES titles (my wife thinks my interest in gaming history is ridiculous :). I would certainly pay attention to any merge. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or possibly merge into an article covering this particular line of unlicensed games. There's enough on Google Books and a few bits scattered online to lead me to believe it could at least work, and deletion is being rather presumptuous. As it stands there is some weight to argue the game exerts notability. Yeah, I'm agreeing with Dream Focus on this one, I don't see a point or reason to delete at this time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objection The four Google Books results are passing mentions. There are no more than a maximum of three sentence coverage in each. As for those "a few bits scattered online", again scattered bits are not significant coverage. That means the subject of the article has not received any significant coverage and hence does not merit an article of its own. Fleet Command (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus to delete, or rather (more accurately) no interest in deleting it. Apart from the nomination this has attracted only one comment, which seems to oppose deletion, and the nominator has not returned to address this comment. I might perhaps have re-listed this, but I do not see that a second relisting would attract any further attention.

A "no consensus" outcome does not prevent this article from being nominated for deletion in future. However, I would encourage anyone considering that step to communicate with User:Jt sass and actually answer his/her question below, in a helpful way, before renominating. We need to encourage new editors, not put them off with bureaucracy. NAC by —S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC). [reply]

The Jersey Syndicate[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 00:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure what I did wrong when trying the start a new page. Could you please help me understand? I was just trying to do a writte on the New Jersey band, The Jersey Syndicate. I don't see anything written that violates any Wikipedia policies.

Jt sass (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP This list meets WP:LIST and WP:CLN guidelines as well as WP:GNG. There is room for improvement and unverifiable entries should be challenged on the talk page. Mike Cline (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mallu Magalhães songs[edit]

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

nothing but a song list, not even marked as a stub. Most songs not notable, if not deleted, would at least be better merged to discography, even then, doesn't seem needed at all Alan - talk 06:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The list provisions are pretty liberal about what kind of lists get to stay; multiple redundant lists are seen as useful aids to navigation and help with sorting information in ways that aid users. "Nothing but a song list" is not a reason for deletion. See WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DustFormsWords. Poltair (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article meets all the specifications of Wikipedia and is part of the life story of singer Mallu Magalhães the same.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hi Gavin.collins. WP:Source list doesn't make any reference to a "verifiable definition", although it does specifically say that "difficult or contentious subjects for which the definition of the topic itself is disputed should be discussed on the talk page" (ie solved through discussion, not AfD) but in any case verifiability only applies to contentious or challenged content. Despite all of the above, the list starts with the words, "This is a chronological list of officially released songs by Brazilian Folk singer, songwriter and musician Mallu Magalhães," which clearly defines the scope and organisation of the list. If there's dispute about whether any particular song falls under that heading it can be resolved through normal editing, not via AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Every list has a definition, even if it is only the title. For a list to demonstrate it is not original research, it must provide a verifiable definition of what it is about, even if that definition is as broad or as vague as the title itself. In the context of songs by Mallu Magalhães, who has defined what is or is not a "officially released song"? If a reliable source can be found can provide an answer, then perhaps this list has a rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia, and can be saved from deletion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per WP:Source list, ambiguities in the scope of the list are to be discussed on the article's talk page, not solved through deletion. I wouldn't think there's much difficulty in determining what is and is not an "officially released song" but in as much as there's a difficulty it's something that can be solved by a better phrasing of the definition - it's not fundamentally unfixable. A list of songs by a notable singer is a worthwhile list, and if you argue that either the singer isn't notable or the songs don't belong on the list that's not an argument to have through the forum of an AfD. I feel you're confusing "things in this article that need improvement" with "reasons to delete this article", which aren't the same thing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you will find that policy is quite clear that whether content comes in the form of a list article or standalone article, it needs to be verifiable by an external source. Wikipedia policy places a buden on every editor to provide details of where they have got their informtation from, and this applies to list articles as well as standalone articles. There is also a requirement to provide evidence that a list is not original research, by citing reliable sources that are directly related to the list. As stated earlier, every list has a definition, even if it is only the title. For a list to demonstrate it is not original research, it must provide a verifiable definition of what it is about, even if that definition is as broad or as vague as the title itself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That's not what WP:V says at all; content only requires sources where it's contentious or likely to be challenged. Further, the fact that an article contains unverifiable information isn't a reason to delete an article under any policy (except where the lack of such sources makes it fail WP:N) - it's a reason to work on fixing the article. I've I think said all I can say on this here and at your talk page - and I have to say that other than as a matter of principle it's hard to care a lot about whether this particular list actually survives or not - so thank you for your politeness and your reference to policy and I look forward to working with you on other articles! - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No compelling arguements for deletion, despite the continual relisting to try and force one. Lugnuts (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rather take exception to Lugnuts' remark there. The "continual relisting to try and force one" is an overly-cynical, and unfair, characterisation of Wikipedia's administrators.

    Having said that, DustFormsWords' remark (above) seems to conclude the matter and I am not sure myself why it would be relisted twice. DFW quite correctly points out that the individual elements of a list need not be notable, and that the list subject itself need not be notable provided that it serves a navigational function that's helpful to end-users (rather than being a promotional or marketing-type list).

    I don't agree with Gavin Collins at all. It's not usually hard to tell whether a song's "officially released", and to claim we need an exact definition for that is simply pettifogging. There may be cases where there's a legitimate dispute around one particular track, but that needs to be solved by interested editors on the list's talk page, rather than by unilateral deletion.

    All in all I think this discussion is over, all the necessary points have been made, and I would like to invite some passing admin to close it accordingly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Teresa Borcz Khalifa[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular T · C 18:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Shabazz[edit]

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

Not a notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you look at the sources that I linked you'll find out. It's explained very clearly how the subject gained "fame and infamy". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The question is not "what is he notable for," but rather "is he notable?" GNews, GScholar and Google strongly suggest that he is. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 10:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The book results and his role in converting Cassius Clay to Islam seem to satisfy [[WP:BIO], The article needs some rewriting because it smacks of autobiography or writing from personal knowledge rather than from secondary sources, and it is a bit positive POV. Edison (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ginsengbomb and Edison. One may not care for this person and still see clearly that he's notable. Adding additional sources and fixing point of view should have been done through the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Teen Media Institute[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. most of the gnews listing is events listings not in depth coverage. [17]. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Significant coverage in independent reliable sources here and here. Some several hundred cites of them as a news source/news organisation rebroadcasting on a range of TV and radio stations both in Alaska and elsewhere. Also note that since they are a news source that apparently exercises editorial control, and that their journalists have won notable awards, this is a case where having an article on them enriches Wikipedia in ways other than directly through content (by allowing a collection point for discussion about their reliability as a source). - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 07:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence for now. The links provided by Dust for Worms are pretty trivial coverage, and I'm not sure that the Alaska ICE site could be considered a reliable source anyway. My own search found a lot of content produced by ATMI, but not much about the organization. Perhaps if we keep digging some better, more substantial sources could be found. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 10:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nature Camp[edit]

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

Zero sources, fails WP:V. No bias against retention if RSs can be found before close, or against recreation if sources become available later --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources are local. No national coverage. Does not meet criteria in WP:ORG. SilkTork *YES! 17:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per SilkTork. The main problem I have with this entry is that the name is non-unique. Polargeo found media hits by searching for "Nature Camp" "George Washington". But if you omit "George Washington" from the search, you find lots of hits for other, equally well-sourced entities called "Nature Camp" in Florida, Connecticut, Tennessee, and probably other places; I didn't look any further. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable information from significant sources are found. I did not see even a hint of notability in the text, and thee are no WP:RS backing the article. Google cont does not equate to notability. Dlohcierekim 07:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question has anyone done a side-by-side comparison between the article and the subject's webpage? The lead and a later paragraph are derived from the webpage. It's late at night or early morning, so maybe I'm not seeing clearly, but I would like to suggest CSDG11 w/ a dash of G12. Dlohcierekim 07:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another one para 3 line 1. Dlohcierekim 07:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google search for "Nature Camp" " the Virginia Federation" I have not been through all these, so I don't know. If anyone would care to winnow. This is an example of what I found. Only blurbs, asides, and promo's. Nothing significant. Subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Dlohcierekim 08:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS and then off to bed With all due respect to Polargeo , I'm afraid those news links all point to trivial blurbs and mentions that are not enough, really, to satisfy the "significant coverage" requirement of the GNG. A local paragraph or three, here and there, (at most) and mostly about a fortunate child winning a scholarship to go there, and not supporting the content of the article. G'night, Dlohcierekim 08:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PPS- I don't think there's enough notability to warrant a merge. Dlohcierekim 16:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per polargeo. It's labeled as a stub and there is enough material around to meet WP:V and WP:NPOV with a little work. If the page isn't improved in a few months, delete it then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Last1in (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think the available material shows that this particular camp is in any way distinctive. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to George Washington and Jefferson National Forests for now. There are significant sources as linked by User:Polargeo. Perhaps in the future, it can be written with the available sources in an npov manner.--PinkBull 18:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with Love (The Beatles album). I'll redirect. Any editor wanting to merge verifiable material is free to do so. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love (Interview Disc)[edit]

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

Perma-stub with no sources, marked for merge since last November. As far as I can tell, there is no meaningful content, but even if there was (or if someone adds some), it can and should be merged into Love (The Beatles album). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as suggested by Justin. It is tough to search for sources on this item due to the bland title, but the disc does not seem to appear in Beatles discographies as maintained by fan clubs, record labels, etc. Perhaps this is an obscure collector's item coveted by the Beatlemania crowd, but for WP the merge would be sufficient. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and cite. If no reliable sources then delete. SilkTork *YES! 17:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Into The Mouth of Badd(d)ness. Editors that are able to merge verifiable material about the single are welcome to do so. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 06:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Mouth of Badd(d)ness[edit]

In the Mouth of Badd(d)ness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article consists of fan trivia, some of which can be added to album article Into The Mouth of Badd(d)ness. Otherwise, WP:NSONGS is not met. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted, A7. Non-admin closure ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highelf77[edit]


Highelf77 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was declined w/o comment by anon IP. Topic is non-notable. Google, GNews, etc. return non-existent reliable, secondary coverage. Sourcing in article is the individual's website and Twitter account. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete Highelf77 wikipedia page should not be deleted, he has contributed a lot to the Warcraft 3 mod making scene and is a key figure, despite there being few sources of information relating to him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.233.52 (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete, Highelf77 is famous within a niche. The mod community clearly identifies him as a figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.15.103 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he's a famous figure, why can't anyone find any sources for him? That's the big problem here. People keep claiming that he is famous and is key to the modding scene, but nobody has written anything notable about him. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 00:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that's true, but there are some sources on him such as his website and profile on a mod site. They are not entirely reliable but they pass. His website isn't run by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.15.103 (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a website and making a profile on a mod site that anyone can make does not equal notability. Since this is an article about a person, I suggest looking at WP:BIO (where Highelf77 fails both points) and, likely WP:CREATIVE since he's making mods which I consider a form of creativity. He fails all criteria of that, too. Sorry, but I just don't see this guy being notable. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 00:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete This article should not be deleted, the figure is semi-notable. The above users disagree with you. Making mods is not a form of creativity. Yes the article needs fixing up but that doesn't mean it should be removed.
Comment - Okay, the above users disagree with me. This isn't a majority vote - simply saying "I disagree, don't delete" won't change anything. It is a consensus, meaning the side that has the most evidence in their favor gets their way. You need to give more evidence showing notability than you have. For this article to stay, it needs to pass WP:BIO. It doesn't.
It isn't being deleted because of it needing "fixing up", it's being deleted because the subject is not notable. Making mods for a game and having a website does not make someone notable. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 06:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconding a Speedy Deletion through criteria A7. Subject has absolutely no claim to importance. Marasmusine (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this "issue" really matter? Why not just keep the page instead of waste time arguing over if it should be deleted or not, there are more pages out there that are subject to vandalism or self promotion, just focus on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.1.250 (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the issue does matter. Simply trying to convince us it doesn't will not change anything. The person does not meet notability standards, and the article needs to be removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not MySpace - not everyone gets a page about them. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with it not passing A7, there are sources on the website claiming the figures relevance. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times as outlined on the profile page. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field, they have created a product that has contributed to the field (the alternative races collection) as is evident on the website - which is an effective source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.1.250 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is on his own personal website does not matter - it is his, and so unless the things he says on his website are sourced as well, there is no way to verify any of it, meaning his website is not appropriate to be used as a source. And actually, in fact, his profile pages do not say anything about receiving a notable award or honor, or being nominated for one several times. They have not "created a product", they modified someone elses product for fun. I'm sorry, but adding different races into a game just isn't notable to me. Arguing this is pointless - you can claim these things all you want, but until you can show independant, verifiable sources showing his notability (and no, HIS website does not count), the article is gone. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous the extent to which both parties are arguing. Just reach a consensus and keep the article but note that citation and appropriate references are needed.

  • If we simply skipped to keep like you suggest, that wouldn't be a consensus. The issue here isn't that it needs citation and references, the issue is that he doesn't have anything notable to source. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's negotiate. Perhaps the figure should be contacted and asked to provide more sources of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • We are negotiating. There are no sources of information. I don't know how to explain it any better. The figure in question has not done anything notable to source. He made mods for a video game, that's his only claim to notability. I'm sorry, but that isn't worth an article. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 13:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This website shows the awards the figure got in the field - http://war3.incgamers.com/?p=mod&m=11034 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm currently on a school network, and so I can't see that page. Could you please tell me exactly what awards he has won? ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 13:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think I found another source - http://themodcommunity.weebly.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not a notable award. That is some guy with a weebly.com page saying he thinks Highelf77 is mod maker of the year. You guys need to find a verifiable, notable source - not random links to Weebly pages and public profiles on websites anyone can make accounts on. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 13:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one can just create that particular page (http://war3.incgamers.com/?p=mod&m=11034). That would be impossible considering its been up for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was speaking about the Weebly page - that's why I responded to THAT comment. Please do not assume and put words in my mouth. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 13:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the other source quoted is reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is it reliable? Because I said I didn't look at it? Sorry - that doesn't make it notable. I asked before for you to tell me what awards were on that page, and you did not. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 13:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is reliable because it documents the awards of the figure. Mod maker of the year 2005 and creator of the alternative races collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That logic doesn't make sense. It is reliable because it says he won the award? That makes no sense at all. Anyway, no, that is not a notable award, as it was given to Highelf77 by a non-notable site. Generally, if the website in question isn't known for giving awards, it probably isn't a notable award. Argue with me all you want, but a random website that doesn't have a wikipedia page saying "oh, well, this guy is mod maker of the year" doesn't work. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 14:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no evidence to suggest the mod community website is not a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um... yes, there is. It is a random, unsourced, unprofessional website on a site that anyone can make a page on - weebly is a free page website. ANYONE could have made that page. You could have made it right now, and claim it's a source. There is no way to tell. Just because it says "Highelf77" on the page does not mean it is a good source. You are really grasping for straws here, and it isn't working. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 13:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do show me a page on wikipedia policy stating weebly cannot be a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does not state anything on weebly. Other than it may a questionable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • It doesn't say anything about specific websites. What did you expect, a page that says "Weebly is not a source"? Not going to happen. Read WP:SOURCES closer. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Okay? Weebly is not a reliable, published source with a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. It is a random webpage that ANYONE could have made. There is no fact checking, no accuracy checking, it could all be a lie - there is no way to know, and that is why it is not reliable. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 13:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence of such a claim? If the site is not based on reliable, third party published sources than it is still a questionable source, which is to some extent still accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where is the evidence? Look at the page, man. This is becoming an extremely frustrating argument - you are simply ignoring everything I say and going "YES IT DOES!" Read WP:SOURCES, again. "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves". On themselves. Since this is not an article about "Mod Community", that page is NOT useable as a source or questionable source. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 13:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough sources quoted to form the basis of the article. We have plenty of sources here, while not reliable all form together to document that this figure is real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The question isn't if the subject is REAL. I have no doubts that this person actually exists - the question is if he is notable or not. He isn't. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 13:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are various sources stating the awards the figure has received in the field. Hence he is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your evidence that the award isnt notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) The website giving it is not notable. 2) The person who assigned the award to Highelf77 is not notable. 3) The award was "Mod Maker of the Year". That on it's own is not notable, because it is not a significant award. He made a mod. That's all. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 14:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Claims without sources, irrelevant"? That describes the entire Highelf77 page, haha. But alright. Sources? Okay. incgamers. Red link, that is the site that gave the award. Non-notable, it does not have an article. the mod community. Red link, that is the other site that gave the award. Non-notable, it does not have an article. Nice try, but you'll need to do better than start getting mad and saying "lol no sources" like you are. I don't need sources to back up my own words, only for articles - but there you go, evidence. This arguement is going nowhere, you are refusing to budge. This guy does not need an article. All he did was make a mod. Thanks for trying, but no, non-notable subject. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 14:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has been speedy deleted under the A7 speedy delete criteria. I'm finished arguing - this is going nowhere, and I can tell that I will never get 220.253.63.16 to change his opinion. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 14:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. Consensus dictates that this does not meet notability requirements for a separate, stand-alone article. I've decided to redirect to Transport Innovation Fund. Further discussion can occur about where to merge verifiable material or if this is the most appropriate redirect target. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 09:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridgeshire TIF bid‎[edit]

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

Subject has not has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so does not meet notability criteria. Dancarney (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Dancarney (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. At the moment, we don't know if this will have any enduring notability. It won't if the bid fails, and we can't keep the article whilst we wait for the result due to WP:CRYSTAL. Even if the bid succeeds, I'm not sure there's enough long-term notability to justify an article on this. However, a lot of this information could be incorporated into the articles of the places affected. I don't see any harm in keeping this in userspace until we know what to do with this information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's safe to say there's no long-term notability in this. But deletion is not necessary (and so should be avoided--see WP:BEFORE). Simply merge a very trimmed version to Transport Innovation Fund, retaining the history under a redirect.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Transport Innovation Fund. There is plenty room in the target page for a section on each of the projects, and that seems a good way forward. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect. Agree this is a better idea. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect. The long-term notability of this appears to have been settled in the negative as the government has replaced the TIF with the Urban Challenge Fund http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=411725&NewsAreaID=2. Rich257 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but to Cambridgeshire County Council. This is a funding bid by it, which may or may not be successful, so that the whole matter comes close to WP:CRYSTAL, though it does not prcisely fit that classification. I would guess that every Transport Authority is making a similar bid. The appropriate place for such material is on the Local Authority's own website. The Cambs CC transport section should merely state that a TIF bid has been made, using an external link as reference. Do not retain any redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry, but there is no substantive Cambridgeshire County Council article to merge it into! However, it doesn't seem a good idea, anyway, since Transport Innovation Fund deals with the topic and needs more content. WP:CRYSTAL is not relevant; the content is about the bid, which has been made. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the articles sources are independent media, thus not meeting WP:N.--PinkBull 20:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimini Hignett[edit]

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

WP is not Myspace. This article, created late 2008, appears to be an autobiography of a then art student. The article is poorly sourced or relies on primary sources, and many biographical details are completely unveifiable. A Gsearch reveals almost nothing but directory links or own website. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corey J. Smith[edit]

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

Delete -- actor appears to be non-notable, not having appeared in any significant roles, and lacks coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like he's been in a lot of movies that were widely screened.QueenJenny (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent references - and at least one dubious statement: "Corey demonstrates a talent for fellatio when he plays Timmy in episode #2.2 (2008) That Mitchell and Webb Look." He would have been 14-15 at the time, and this would have been somewhat illegal insofar as I understand UK law. Peridon (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Flowroshus[edit]

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

The one article is about a musician who has not reached the point of meeting WP:Music. He is, to quote a blurb on a production company webpage that mentioned him, "up and coming." But not there. The other is about his debut album. CSD tags were removed anonymously. As the one is sourced, that is as it should be. Neither subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:Music. There are two sources in the Jo Flowroshus article. An interview in 608. 608 is a local magazine in Madison, Wisconson. This is not sufficient to establish notability, as is true of the other ref, a blog. There is nothing at Allmusic or Billboard. No Google book hits. There are two paywalled news articles via Highbeam that talk about the subject and others in a concert. The webhits are blurbs, proportionals promotionals and downloads and Facebook and MySpace. Dlohcierekim 08:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 08:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References cited are insufficient to confer notability, and Google hunting isn't helping. Artist is signed to a label that might help pass notability if he releases another album, but in lieu of that this doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • 'Keep These other guys obviously did not check on Jo's references... gregjackp, dlohcierekim, and ginseng bomb are one in the same account and on every page it says that they all like to delete pages on wikipedia...they have gone too far in this case. Some soldiers kill cuz they have to..and some use the system as an excuse to kill- and mistakes are made..which is so in this case. FYI... Jo Flowroshus is a member of Get Money Gang Entertainment which is Twista's company, and an offical member of the Speedknot Mobstaz. Jo is also affiliated with many major acts in hip hop today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.125.73 (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And still does not meet WP:Music. Please do your research and refrain from personal attacks and serious false accusations. Dlohcierekim 16:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP is not a junkyard. Ref 1 is local coverage only. Ref 2 is a local blog only. Ref 3 & 4 is a local coverage blog, with both being a passing (trivial) mention of an appearance with Twista. Ref 5 is a promo for a mixtape release on the preceding blog. Ref 6 just shows him in a video of Twista. Affiliation with notable acts does not make him notable, he has to meet WP:MUSICBIO on his own. The above does not meet criteria 1 (non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources). No charted single or album. No gold records. No coverage of international or national tour. Only 1 album. Not part of an ensemble. Not the most prominent rep of hip-hop, either nationally or locally. No award noms. No competition wins. No work for a notable TV show, movie, etc. Not in rotation of major national radio network - one local station only. Not the subject of any broadcast on national radio or TV. Exactly where does he meet notability standards? Show a reason to keep him, where he meets the standards, and I'll be happy to change my vote. (GregJackP (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • "Local" sources need not be dismissed out-of-hand, but I still don't find there is enough coverage here to meet the general notability guideline, and when I checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, all I could find were a couple of concert listings. Delete unless some additional significant coverage turns up by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merge discussion is encouraged to be continued on the article's talk page at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peek-A-Boo Poker[edit]

Peek-A-Boo Poker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish the notability of its subject as required by Wikipedia general notability guideline by providing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fleet Command (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 08:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 08:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage in any reliable sources, only in video game repositories (GameFAQS, Mobygames, etc.). Trivial coverage in Books search, as far as I can tell nothing more than mentions are part of a larger topic of morally "adventurous" (my words) videogames. There's nothing else out there that seems to have a chance of conferring notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its mentioned in plenty of books. [19] Only one mention in a news article I found. [20]. Hundreds of thousands of hits on regular Google. Not sure which sites about games are considered reliable sources, and which ones aren't, but it seems to be mentioned everywhere. Dream Focus 09:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's a guideline on reliable sources for videogames. If you (or someone) can find significant discussion in a few reliable sources, that should establish notability. :) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Click on the book search reviews and look at the titles of the books and their summaries. Don't they seem notable? Dream Focus 15:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussion — Lots of sources
        • That is a use
        • Comment: This citation of "arguments to avoid" is spurious. DreamFocus is here discussing notability and not reliability (the central point of "Lots of sources"). The only potentially applicable portion of the "argument to avoid," that sources should be listed individually to avoid user comment bias, is inapplicable to a link to Google Books. -Thibbs (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, he did not. If he had done, the article wouldn't have looked the same. All he has found is a couple of weasel sources, a couple of links that misleads us into thinking that something has reliable sources but it doesn't. Fleet Command (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Weasel sources? How exactly is the Google book search results misleading? Should I copy all the results here, instead of letting people just click a link to see them there? [21] Video Game Bible, 1985-2002‎ - Page 117, Sex in video games‎ - Page 40, The ultimate history of video games: from Pong to Pokémon and beyond : the ...‎ - Page 399, How to Be a Porno Producer‎ - Page 146, Power-up: how Japanese video games gave the world an extra life‎ - Page 297, The first quarter: a 25-year history of video games. That's six books that look like notable mention to me. Dream Focus 07:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes and no. No because I dont' expect you to copy them here. Yes, because Wikipedia expects you to copy them into the article in the manner that Wikipedia calls "citing sources". Fleet Command (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wait, you're voting "delete" simply because the reliable sources which have been offered for proof of notability do not appear in the article? ... You do know that these articles are freely editable, right? Deleting a notable topic for failure of adequate sourcing is not helpful if you know that adequate sources exist. -Thibbs (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No! Not just because "because the reliable sources [...] do not appear in the article". Because they CANNOT appear in the article. Because no matter what you do, you can't fashion an article out of these sources. You are using them as an excuse to affect the AfD in favor of keeping an article that you like but does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. That is why Notability require evidence. You have no evidence. You only pretend to have a lot. Fleet Command (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what sense can they not appear in the article? Presumably if they cover the topic then the issues they cover can be sourced or if the issues do not currently appear in the article then they can be introduced into the article and sourced. The existence of reliable sources demonstrating notability should not be regarded as an excuse to keep but rather a reason to avoid unnecessary deletion. I feel like there are unwarranted degrees of bad faith being read into my arguments. -Thibbs (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm! I dare say so. You are theoretically right: "The existence of reliable sources demonstrating notability should not be regarded as an excuse to keep..." But is it? That's why I believe WP:NRVE should be enforced with extreme prejudice. Anyways, I believe my answer at the bottom satisfies you. Fleet Command (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also nominated for deletion, Panesian(company that makes these games) and Bubble Bath Babes. Dream Focus 15:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)*The reliable sources can be automatically searched by Google, there a link on that page provided. 29 results for this game. [22] Dream Focus 15:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussion — Lots of sources
      • Comment: This citation of "arguments to avoid" is only tangentially related in this case. DreamFocus clearly identified his link as a list of reliable sources and thus the only applicable portion of the "argument to avoid" is that DreamFocus should have listed the sources individually to avoid user comment bias. -Thibbs (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, he did not. If he had done, the article wouldn't have looked the same. All he has found is a couple of weasel sources, a couple of links that mislead us into thinking that something has reliable sources but it doesn't. Fleet Command (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gamespy[23] mentions the Peek-A-Boo Poker, along with Bubble Bath Babes, and Hot Slots, as being the most wanted games for collectors, getting the highest prices. The game made a notable list, which is mentioned by many different news sources. Dream Focus 16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing about that list confers notability. We need "significant, non-trivial" coverage. The books you reference above don't seem to move beyond the "non-trivial" area, either, although they're much closer than this list, which is just that -- a list of 10 games from "Videogame Price Charts." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussion — Arbitrary quantity Fleet Command (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is an essay, which anyone could put up anywhere, saying anything they want. Its meaningless. Some will insanely argue that a book that sold millions of confirmed copies isn't notable, since the sales figures don't matter at all. But common sense usually prevails, and bestselling novels are saved anyway. A big number sometimes is quite important, depending on what it is a number of. Dream Focus 07:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Best-selling novels aren't saved because of their sales figures, though. They're saved because they typically pass WP:GNG with flying colors. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • Dream Focus, if you are rejecting the aforementioned essay then you are proposing that there is something wrong with it. If what you stated is all that you think it is wrong with it, then I am afraid you are wrong. WP:Notability clearly states what the threshold of inclusion in Wikipedia is and in the given criteria, there is no mention of arbitrary quantity.

          And by the way, no, not everybody can post an essay in Wikipedia namespace and expect it to survive more than a month (I'm being generous!) unless that essay is very solid. Since you did know this, it is obvious that you are not action in good faith. Fleet Command (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Books and news articles aren't the only way to establish that RSes exist. Numerous game-related websites exist that have been determined by the community to meet Wikipedia's reliability criterion. For the same reason as I've given in my votes for Panesian and Bubble Bath Babes, I would be willing to compromise to merge but nothing more destructive than that. -Thibbs (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you can supply an example of one (or several, whichever) of these sites and some indication of this the community determining that they meet reliability criteria, then I change my vote, presto! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussion — Lots of sources Fleet Command (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a mischaracterization of my argument. To begin with I am saying that there are a lot of websites that can be used to source things reliably that are not books of newspapers. There is no question that I am correct in that. As far as this specific game is concerned, I confess that I have not spent a great deal of time examining the sourcing, but from the RSes I have found covering the related topics of Panesian and Bubble Bath Babes, I suspect that similar might exist in this case as well. Please note that I'm not just saying that there may be lots of sources, I'm saying that there may be lots of reliable sources. A subtle distinction, but one that makes all the difference. If the reliable sources don't cover this game with enough specificity then as I said, I vote "merge." -Thibbs (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood -- wasn't my intention to mischaracterize, I assure you. I'll check in on your sourcing work on Panesian and Bubble Bath Babes -- I haven't found much of anything for this particular game, but that's not to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that such sourcing doesn't exist. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No problem. You weren't alone in misunderstanding me so it's probably my fault. I could have been clearer in my choice of language. -Thibbs (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because a game violate's Nintendo's "family-friendly policy" doesn't mean it has to be excluded from Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is to become a complete archive of information about Nintendo games, it has to cover them all from preschooler games to adult pornographic video games. GVnayR (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whoah, who said that the game needs to be excluded for "violating Nintendo's family friendly policy?" That is not at all why this AfD is happening. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And by the way, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a complete archive of anything. Wikipedia is not a directory. Articles that merit inclusion in Wikipedia must not only meet the requirements of WP:GNG, but also prove their notability. Fleet Command (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, Wikipedia is suppose to be an WP:ALMANAC, as well as an encyclopedia and other things. And you have to follow policy, not the suggested guidelines, and certainly not someone's personal essay. Dream Focus 07:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, as I asked in the other game article related to this one that you nominated separately, what part of the policy of WP:NOTDIR do you think is relevant here? This isn't a phone book, or anything else on the list. Dream Focus 07:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're getting off track here, but what do you mean by "Wikipedia is supposed to be an WP:ALMANAC"? First I've heard of this. The link you have there doesn't seem to support what you're saying.

            Regardless, whether Wikipedia is an almanac, a bible, a phone book or a Swiss stopwatch, all content included has to pass WP:GNG. Let's not get sidetracked by whether or not WP:NOTDIR applies. The nomination, and the vast majority of discussion on here, focuses on notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

            • WP:NOTDIR can not possibly apply in any possible way. No policy is violated here. Policy is all that must be followed. This includes the WP:Five_pillars of Wikipedia. Hmm... there was a policy page somewhere mentioning more about the almanac thing. Listing every game ever released sounds more like an almanac to me than anything else. As for notability, Wikipedia policy is that notability is determined by consensus, not mindlessly following rules. Dream Focus 08:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is very simple Dream Focus: Wikipedia is not a collection of article which contain nothing but the most basic statistical data of all computer software or a certain genre of computer software. Such a thing is a directory and Wikipedia is not a directory. The threshold for inclusion of an article is notability. Judging by all the AfDs I've seen you in, you are perfectly aware of what I just said. Fleet Command (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, at this point I'm going to fade into the background on this one, because I'm not sure I have anything new to contribute and I think this is getting off-track with the "policy is good" vs. "policy is mindless" argument developing. Final words: I do not see any evidence anywhere of substantial, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. There is some wiggle room, as always, in what constitutes "non-trivial." I urge common sense. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far, more people say Keep, it notable enough coverage. Three want it kept, two want it deleted. Dream Focus 19:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you should know by now, this is not a vote. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was, the consensus is that the sources provided are enough to confirm notability. Dream Focus 04:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know I said I'd walk away from this, but now you're saying that there is consensus here that notability is confirmed? Seriously? This AfD reads like consensus to you? Either way, as you put in your edit summary before to me, "you are NOT an admin," and you don't get to make that determination. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Delete or Merge ...to Adult video games, in the form of a brief descriptive mention (1-3 sentences or so). I've changed my vote at the related AfD on Bubble Bath Babes to the same, in the interest of finding meaningful consensus. I do not believe sufficiently reliable sourcing has been provided at either article to support full articles devoted to these games, but I am perfectly comfortable with incorporating what limited content we have on them into the Adult video games article, as in that situation the standards can drop down a bit to very easily incorporate the likes of Joystiq.com. I am also hopeful that this might be a more meaningful way to finding consensus on these rather hotly-debated articles, and I would urge anybody involved here to consider Merge as an option that might be amenable to everyone. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Ginsengbomb. However, I am concerned that deciding to end this AfD with Merge would result in the article getting silently slain. (That is a concern that Dream Focus has introduced in his user page.) In time, I believe that honesty of one with oneself is the best policy and if oneself thinks that Merge might mean gradual death, it is better for one to vote Delete, so that he or she is honest with the others as well. Call it an act of coup de grâce if you wish. Fleet Command (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll let Dream Focus speak for himself, but I don't think that his argument was that if mergers resulted in the loss of good (verifiable, etc.) information then we should just give up and vote delete to save time. -Thibbs (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I concur. So, merge it is. Fleet Command (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Most people who have stated their opinions, have said keep. And why would you merge it? It has coverage, so it passes the requirement for notability. Dream Focus 12:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because I believe coming to a compromise is sometimes more important than zealously enforcing the policy in its strictest of forms. Fleet Command (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any verifiable material to Adult video games. I think I've mentioned elsewhere that an article on unlicenced video games might be doable, too. Marasmusine (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Hacker International the company that created the game(s). There are sources but this is also a very short article so bundling it with the parent company and likely the other two videos can make for an interesting read. -- Banjeboi 15:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is confusing. Did Hacker International or Panesian make these games? There are people arguing at these articles and others that all should be merged to Panesian (not something I support, given Panesian's lack of notability). I think, frankly, this confusion lends all the more weight to a merge to Adult video games. There's a home for all this stuff there, with appropriate redirects of course. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hacker International, which also - of course! - uses other names, made these and Panesian seems to be the American distributor although they could be a sub company. I think the merge should go to Hacker International and then appropriate content pulled out to Adult video games as needed. In this way we have the dry boring details of the product retained with the company article which likely are unneeded at Adult video games. -- Banjeboi 06:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Adult video game, due to paucity of third-party coverage in reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panesian[edit]

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

This article fails to establish the notability of its subject as required by Wikipedia Notability guideline for organizations and companies. Fleet Command (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As I said on the talk page, after deproding it, the company is called something else. [24] Google news has two valid results found so far for it. There is mention of the games in many places. Was its actual name Panesian Pleasures Ltd.? If so a rename is in order. Have to find a picture of one of the games and see what was written on the cover. Its notable for producing games which Nintendo sued them over, they illegally released to be used on its system without a license from Nintendo. I'm sure there was news about that back when it came out. Not every newspaper allows people to freely search their archives though. Dream Focus 09:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dream Focus' GNews link basically argues in favor of deletion. Of the two results, one doesn't even mention Panesian, and the other is about risque games and has a passing mention of Panesian. Hardly "valid results." If there is "mention of the games in many places," I'm certainly not seeing it, beyond some gaming blog postings, etc. Nothing that qualifies as verifiable, reliable secondary sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also nominated for deletion, Bubble Bath Babes and Peek A Boo Poker, both games made by this company. Dream Focus 15:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to pass WP:CORP, which is actually kind of surprising since you'd think an adult video game company back then would have caused a big moral outrage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Reach Out to the Truth 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with its more notable products. As DreamFocus points out these articles are notable as a whole. The company produced unlicensed games for the NES and these are some of the rarest and most sought-after games for collectors fetching prices in the several hundreds to over $1000. There are reliable sources that cover them. Some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. In anticipation of the claim that these are merely trivial references as these articles cover the topic of rare unlicensed games in general, I'll comment that the notability here suffers from dilution as the company made as many as three notable games. The company is now defunct so finding sources that discuss it in isolation from its products is, for obvious reasons, difficult. If nothing substantial can be found then I'd change my vote to merge. Deletion is unwarranted. -Thibbs (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This coverage is trivial. I'm not sure how your comment about the notability suffering from "dilution" changes that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objection 1: Notability is not inherited. Fleet Command (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I take it you're arguing here that the company that has produced notable games doesn't thereby "inherit" their notability. This argument is severely undermined by your arguments in the other AfDs that this company's games aren't notable. What, then, is the company not capable of inheriting? The lack of its products' notability? Such an argument is without any meaning. The three articles taken as a whole are quite obviously notable. Reliable sources discuss them significantly and so at the most basic level let us acknowledge that we have before us something that has broad notability. As far as whether the three articles are independently notable enough to be kept there is some argument. I believe that the article on Panesian would be an ideal catch-all compromise for those topics that may not have sufficient notability of sourcing to support an individual article. As I said before, deletion of all three articles would hurt and not help Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd like to point out that the NOTINHERITED thing is an essay, it someone's opinion, anyone able to make an essay that says the exact opposite if they felt like it. Dream Focus 08:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do not play with words. FIRST: It was you who suggested the inheritance of notability and hence assumed it notable, not me. SECOND: I didn't suggest inheritance from another article. I suggested it for another related subject. There is a very significant distinction between the two which I do not think a smart Wikipedian like you have failed to see. Fleet Command (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you could show by using quoted language where anybody has made a claim of inherited notability then that would probably go a long way to demonstrating the applicability of WP:NOTINHERITED. I mean I have framed my argument that all three articles should not be deleted by saying that something notable exists here as demonstrated by the reliable sources. Your argument seems to be that since I have asserted notability for the products that I am foreclosed from arguing in the alternative that if the community deems any of the topics to be less than notable then they should be merged into this parent article so that Wikipedia doesn't lose verifiably notable material needlessly. NOTHINHERITED is policy that aims to deny article-status to "hanger on" articles that are outshined by their progenitors (or in this case their offspring). To argue for Paresian's deletion under this rationale and in the same breath to argue that the "outshining" offspring are non-notable seems a bit disingenuous to me. The result you're seeking is the deletion of all three articles. Will you not concede that there is something verifiably notable here at least in a broad sense (i.e. in regarding the three articles together collectively)? Shouldn't you at least be voting to merge? -Thibbs (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

              • You said:

                If you could show by using quoted language where anybody has made a claim of inherited notability then that would probably go a long way to demonstrating the applicability of WP:NOTINHERITED.

                That is a valid question. You introduced four sources. Three of these sources (#2, #3 and #4) do not directly cover Panesian. They cover NES games, NES itself, the topic of unlicensed cartridges and other NES-related stuff. Correct me if I am wrong: You listed these sources to oppose my nomination of deletion per lack of proof of notability. Since these sources do not cover Panesian significantly, hence I presume you mean that these sources introduce subjects that are notable and Panesian inherits their notability. You reinforce this assumption of mine by stating that direct coverage for Panesian cannot be found!

                You said:

                The result you're seeking is the deletion of all three articles. Will you not concede that there is something verifiably notable here at least in a broad sense (i.e. in regarding the three articles together collectively)?

                I seek to delete the three article because I do not think their topics are notable. Although I do concede that on the whole there is something notable amongst the three topics, I do not believe that those articles merit being kept. I think whatever notable in these articles can be salvaged in the time remaining. Fleet Command (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You've acknowledged that there is something notable here. You recognize (I think) that there are reliable sources that cover the topic (in at least its broad sense). These are the inclusion criteria for material on Wikipedia. So... and I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but... why is it that you aren't voting "merge" at least? A vote for "delete" will result in the loss of verifiable notable information. Does that improve Wikipedia in your estimation? -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dare say I'm still not convinced but I believe assuming good faith and letting a merger happen won't hurt. After all, articles can always be deleted or undeleted. So, merge it is. Fleet Command (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objection 2: If finding source for it is impossible, then it is not notable and therefore does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sources are available. Please review the four (4) I list immediately above. You may also wish to examine some of the other sources I have listed under the AfDs for the other two related topics. -Thibbs (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no policy stating that. Inclusion is determined based on policies and consensus. All policies have been met, it verifiable that this does exist, and no policies have been violated. Consensus is determined in the AFD discussion. A company is notable because of its works, just as a director or writer are notable for what they produce. Every single person related to a famous person is not notable simply because of that. See the difference? Dream Focus 08:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you object only to have objected or do you actually have a goal in mind? You said "If nothing substantial can be found then I'd change my vote to merge. Deletion is unwarranted." I say "Wrong! If nothing substantial can be found, then the article does not merit inclusion at all and deletion is rightfully warranted." Now instead of turning AfD into a battlefield, please consider finding some solid source. If you require an example, I advise you to visit articles like Microsoft or Adobe Systems. Fleet Command (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the sources you are using are trivial. You admit that above, although you qualify your admission with the "dilution" point which I'm hoping you can explain further in terms of how it gets around the "impossible to find a non-trivial source" problem. I think I see where you're coming from, I just don't see how it changes anything. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm saying is that some of the sources I have linked are possibly trivial but only in relation to the specific topic of the article. That's not to say that there's nothing notable there, however, on a broader level. If some of the rest of the same source covers "Bobble Bath Babes," "Peek-A-Boo Poker," and "Hot Slots" as part of an on-the-whole non-trivial discussion then this favors a vote to merge, not to delete. -Thibbs (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah! Okay, I understand, at least. That said, it doesn't change my view on this. My experience w/ the sources hasn't suggested that there is some broader notability when one combines the three articles at issue. But at least now we seem to be at an "agree to disagree" place on whether or not the coverage is trivial and/or reliable. Closing admin can evaluate. Thanks for the clarification on that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As an adult video game company, Panesian constitutes as one of the more eccentric moments of Nintendo history. Omitting this article from Wikipedia would be like exponging Venus de Milo from the Renassiance or the Vietnamese prostitutes from the Vietnam War. GVnayR (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objection: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Personal point of view Fleet Command (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an essay, anyone able to publish an essay saying whatever they want, including the opposite of that. Focus on policies, and trying to convince people of your viewpoint through reasoning, so that a consensus can be formed, and the fate of the article decided. Dream Focus 08:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do not play with words, Dream Focus. You best know that, regardless of what essay says, no article merits inclusion in Wikipedia because it "constitutes as one of the more eccentric moments". Beside, you best know that essays in Wikipedia namespace are actually very solid. This type of wordplay of yours have been used before. It is evident that you are not acting in good faith. Fleet Command (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • There no policy against regarding a notable event in time. Articles published recently, still mention this company and its games, both for they being among the first pornographic video games, as well as for how high a price they get from collectors. And I am not playing with words, just correcting your misconception that the essays hold any sway in things. If they had enough support they'd graduate to guideline status, and then to policy, which would be bounding. Some were formerly guidelines, but since most didn't support them, they got downgraded to personal essay status. All policies have been met, this verifiable, and most believing the coverage they get is enough to make them notable. Dream Focus 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

            • You said:

              There no policy against regarding a notable event in time.

              You are wrong! There is WP:NTEMP. Besides, the nominated article is not about an event in time. It is about a non-notable company.

              Articles published recently, still mention this company and its games, both for they being among the first pornographic video games, as well as for how high a price they get from collectors.

              It doesn't matter. The threshold for inclusion of the company in Wikipedia as an independent article is Notability which this article fails to prove, as required by WP:NRVE. You say that articles "mention" the company. Well, passing mention is not considered significant coverage, which is required by GNG.

              Fleet Command (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Delete or Merge ...to Adult video games. I have made a similar change to my stance at the related Bubble Bath Babes and Peekaboo Poker articles (and the sooner I can stop having to type those amusing names out, the better ;). I am hopeful that a Merge is something that can be more amenable to everyone, and that it might be a way to find effective consensus. Panesian was clearly a company that created games within the category, and while I still fail to see sufficient reliably sourced non-trivial coverage of the company to justify an independent article, as I argue at the related AfD's I think the standards can fall back a bit if we merge the content into Adult video games. Then, situational sources, etc., work much better (situational sources are generally less reliable for notability concerns). I hope others might agree with this stance -- I think it's the proper middle ground. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any verifiable information, along with the two nominated games, to Adult video games, or to the yet-to-be-created Unlicensed video games. Marasmusine (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm! Now you are talking Marasmusine. I believe I owe you an apology. Yes, I concur. Fleet Command (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Adult video games due to a lack of significant coverage in reliabe sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NAEV[edit]

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

A game which has been talked about on some self-published websites / blogs, but has evaded the attention of reliable. published sources; therefore it's going to struggle to meet WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. Marasmusine (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Marasmusine (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any instances of reliable, secondary sourcing. A mole hill of unverifiable blog coverage -- even a mountain, for that matter -- does not confer notability on the subject. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Escape Velocity (computer game), the game that it mimics very closely. And by merge, I mean add 1 or 2 lines - the detail level of the current piece is not necessary given its limited notability. richdiesal (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection to this providing that a)NAEV can be verified through reliable, independent sources; and b)Those sources make a connection with NAEV and Escape Velocity. Marasmusine (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • NAEV started out as an Escape Velocity clone, but as it's maturing it's moving away from the classical Escape Velocity gameplay. I do not think it makes sense to merge them.--147.83.182.27 (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the author of most of this article, I'm obviously not in favour of deleting it.
Consider, for example, The Battle for Wesnoth. It's one of the most prominent free software game projects, with over 3.5 million downloads on its Sourceforge page alone, which does not include those downloads served by the hundreds of Linux distributions that package it, a number likely in the millions as well. Yet its article has one, or possibly two, reliable sources. Everything else is first-party. Fact is, there isn't a lot of media coverage of Wesnoth that meets the the 'notable, reliable', criteria, because it seems to be viewed as an absolute, when it likely should be relative.
Free software is rarely mentioned or reviewed by major publications unless it's a truly massive project, such as the Linux kernel itself, or the Apache httpd. Reviews of free software games, in particular, are practically non-existent. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, being developed incrementally means that the early versions are too immature to warrant coverage, and when a review is published for a particular version, it is rapidly rendered obsolete by subsequent releases.
Contrast this to commercial games. They're released when they're done, subsequent patches rarely add significant content, and they often have millions of dollars in marketing behind them. This is an incentive to so-called 'notable' publications to write about them, because even if not directly cooerced by the publisher of a game, a magazine will see increased sales if a review of a popular game is advertised on the cover. Significant content additions usually come in the form of sequels, which begin the publicity cycle anew.
In part because of this, there are many 'unreliable' technical blogs that I respect far more than just about any journalist published in a magazine with a glossy cover, because their writings are tied to what they believe in, not what they think will bring in the most sales.
My last point is one that I find quite disconcerting. I haven't done much as a Wikipedian, because I realized that the niche projects with Wikipedia pages might actually be harmed by my editing. There are thousands of stubs that fly below the radar, being utterly non-notable, yet existing because they haven't been touched in months or years, and thus never show up to those watching the edit queue. Meanwhile, after the latest flurry of minor edits I did to the NAEV article, it was up for deletion two hours later. That's not encouragement to further edit niche articles and risk raising their profile. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I disagree with your premise that coverage of free software is practically non-existant. Online sites such as Rock Paper Shotgun give extensive coverage of non-mainstream games (for example, look at their coverage of IGF 2010). Paper magazine Edge also discusses independent games. Also, we can use self-published sources if the author is a recognized authority on the subject. But ultimately, this encyclopedia reports only on what has already been reported. If a subject has received little or no attention, then we don't include it. You're asking for a change at the policy level; to broaden the definition of "reliable source". You'd have an easier time contributing the material to a game-specific encyclopedia with a looser quality filter. I don't understand your last point. Are you saying that a topic that is rarely edited should be immune from discussion? Marasmusine (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding coverage, the distinction between freeware and "big-F" free software is fairly important, in this context. I just glanced over the IGF coverage from Rock Paper Shotgun, and it seems all the games there are proprietary, whether freeware or commercial. Typical development of closed-source independent games tends to mimic big-budget games, albeit on a much smaller level -- in that the game is released in a more-or-less finished state, ready for mass consumption, whereas an open source project typically develops from a few hundred lines of pre-alpha, barely-usable code into a mature project, but as that process is incremental there's never any big coverage of any one release, because it's evolutionary, not revolutionary. As for the reliability of sources, I get that there's potential value in editorial oversight typically inherent in a formal publication, but I also think the policy of deeming self-published content to be "largely not acceptable" (quoting WP:IRS) likely does more harm than good. Consider http://freegamer.blogspot.com/ which is one of the external links on the NAEV article. I would deem it reliable within the purview of free software games, despite lack of editorial oversight or dead-tree publishing, because it has a good track record of providing game news and insight without any spin. Regarding my last point, it's a given that policy, especially on a project the size of Wikipedia, cannot be applied instantaneously to all articles it ought to effect. However, I do think it's counter-productive to review articles for notability as they're edited, because it does have the side effect of discouraging those, including myself, who would otherwise improve niche articles towards notability. Basically, if there's any question of or difficulty in proving notability, why put effort into editing a lousy article if that edit could jeopardize its inclusion?
I assume it's fairly common practice to judge notability as things pass through the edit log, but I would think processing questionable-notability articles starting with the oldest (by date of tag, and last edit) would yield more expedient removal of cruft with less toes stepped on. Revisiting notability of open source games, I think List of open-source video games serves as a good example, along with the accompanying category which only encompasses 76 pages. Ignoring the thousands of apparently non-notable open source games, even several games within the 'selected list' are tagged as potentially non-notable, and very few actually have adequate referencing. I don't think it's due to the free software community's inactivity on Wikipedia, given the edit activity of Linux, GNU, Ubuntu, etc., but because the bulk of coverage comes from "unreliable" blogs, forums, and the like. Sources for "professional" software like Apache, MySQL, etc. can easily be found because of large industry publications covering such things, yet most open source game coverage comes in the form of insipid "top N games for Linux" articles on blogs, and their dead-tree equivalents (Which are often sourced, given the dearth of other notable sources) with the only exception being the odd case where a game is used for someone's AI research or game design project. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, and I agree that monitoring can be inconsistant. I do periodically go through some of the "List of" articles - but yes, lack of omnipotency means that some articles go unchecked longer than others (This essay addresses that point). I also admit that I brought NAEV to discussion because recent edits brought it to the top of my watchlist - but it was on my watchlist because I tagged it with some concerns last September, and six months later I still have the same concerns; it needs to be addressed at some point. Regarding Free Gamer, you're not the only one who has argued for it (see Talk:Open source video game). At the moment it's a "no" but perhaps it can be discussed further at WP:RS or WP:VG/RS. Marasmusine (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing counter to that essay; merely that I think it makes little sense to remove ill-sourced active articles when there are ill-sourced articles that have sat stagnant for months or years. I may make a case at WP:VG/S for inclusion of Free Gamer and similar sites. I have posted my thoughts at Wikipedia_talk:VG/RS. In general I think white-listing sites is a terrible idea, though. For example, Linux Magazine is notable enough to have its own article and apparently reliable enough to be cited multiple times yet while digging for NAEV sources, found this "article". The publication may put out some decent content, but that article is poorly-written, poorly-researched dreck... but if you go by the whitelist model, it's "reliable". There's also a Spanish site that has mentioned NAEV several times, Linux Juegos, and they're even cited twice and used as external links by es.wikipedia (I'm assuming most of the major wikis have similar policies), yet they're mostly a tertiary source translating user-generated content from http://happypenguin.org and similar. Especially in niches similar to this, I think policy should take a back seat to common sense. I'll take ten self-published sites like Free Gamer over pseudo-journalism put out by a supposedly-professional magazine. I've made Free Gamer a source, if you still feel it's unreliable, feel free to revert the change. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable game that has absolutely no coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Number of downloads it not relevant - many warez titles see far more than that and we do not include them either. As already noted, all the personal blog coverage in the world does not make it notable either. If/when it becomes notable, then actual reliable sources will cover it. Until, it is just one of the many hundreds, if not thousands, of small, free applications available in the world. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you at best skimmed this page and the article in question because the downloads statistic was an attempt to convey the prominence of Wesnoth, an entirely-unrelated project that likewise has very few reliable sources despite being among the most popular open source games. Not sure what to make of the nonsensical "warez" bit, but Wikipedia does cover many unintentional leaks of movies, music and games. I'm assuming "game system" comes from the mention of the Pandora in the second paragraph, but anything beyond a cursory glance would make it clear that NAEV and Pandora are not remotely related. I suspect it's consensus that one should at least partially familiarize themself with an article before voting on its fate. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned downloads before you made that argument, as you made it for another. The warez bit is not nonsensical. One could make the same argument that warez X has Y downloads, so its notable. It isn't. Game system as in video game, not as in console. Sorry if you have not heard the term used that way and I've corrected it so as to avoid confusing you further. Please do not make presumptions about other people's remarks, and please do not presume to discount them based on your own love of this article. That is not your call to make. Thus far here and at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources you seem determined to pounce on anyone who tells you that no, you can not use some personal blogs as a reliable source, no you cannot change the guidelines to match what you want to save THIS article, and no, this game is not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not equated downloads with notability at any point. Perhaps you should read the article on warez. By definition, a warez release is an illegal copy of existing media, thusly there is no such thing as notable or non-notable warez, as it comes down to the notability of what's being ripped. To garner the attention of a release group your release must be sufficiently noticeable to them, and typical scene releases are high-profile games, movies and albums. There's a large overlap between what the scene chooses to pirate and what's notable for inclusion at Wikipedia. It would seem you're attempting to yet again attack me personally in order to bring my points into question in contravention of Wikipedia policy. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. Pointing out the flaws in your argument, and correcting you is not a personal attack. Questioning your motivations or pointing out that you have, in fact, vehemently and lengthily argued with turned on anyone who has said delete here or disagreed with your "proposal" is not a personal attack. If you want to speak about contravening policies and guidelines, then I'd suggest looking at yourself. From the edit history, it appears that when your arguments here seemed to have no effect, you turned and tried to get the guidelines changed to make your point valid. That is a complete violation of WP:GAME and, to a lesser degree, WP:FORUMSHOPPING as you have restarted the discussion at least three times now, changing venues when one disagreed with you. I do not see where you have made a single, viable argument for keeping this argument, but instead attack the positions of those who argue for its deletion. The onus is on YOU as the one who wants to keep this article to prove it is notable within Wikipedia guidelines, not try to modify them to remove the requirement.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thus far you have twice insinuated that my sole purpose in moving for policy change is to protect my own article. This is a blatant accusation and an attempt to undermine the credibility of my arguments rather than refuting the content, thusly it is an ad hominem attack. If you'd care to read what is written here, Marasmusine instructed that perhaps it would be best to take the Free Gamer issue to Wikiproject Videogames, which is precisely what I did. Then I realized that the reliable sources talk page was a yet better location, so I noted that at Wikiproject Videogames and moved the discussion there, moving into an RfC. I have not restarted it thrice, I have moved it to the most appropriate location and, you'll note I never replied there despite the initial positive response. I am not looking to game the system, as you seem to have convinced yourself. You have also numerous times displayed a deliberate misreading of my comments: If you read the RfC discussion in its entirety you would realize that I am arguing to allow otherwise good sources that fail WP:SPS to be used in in-line citations with reliable-yet-poor sources noted elsewhere. Sources failing WP:SPS would not confer notability. You seem to have a confusion between the definition of debate and argument. In all my responses I have maintained a civil tone, and if I were to not respond to points made against me then it wouldn't be a debate. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems clear we cannot have a rational discussion, we will just have to agree to disagree. I have already made my view known, supported by Wikipedia policy and guideline. Rather than writing lengthy paragraphs claiming people are attacking you for disagreeing with, I'd encourage you to actually try to find evidence of notability for this game, which is currently lacking. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After looking through a few pages of results, I came across an About.com post, which, combined with Linux-Magazine's list yields two reliable sources. I'm unsure about this list and LinuxJuegos. The former appears to be games list maintained by a vendor of numerous commercial Linux distributions amongst other things, while the latter is decidedly shakier. Based on a Google translation it looks like LinuxJuegos translates content from elsewhere and may fail WP:SPS. In light of multiple reliable sources I believe this article meets WP:N. Pending completion of this RfC it would be vastly preferable to draw in-line citations from Free Gamer's well-written review versus the Linux-Magazine list. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was almost prepare to accept the blog post by David Bolton, based on his credentials, but I paused when I saw his closing comment "there's also a Wikipedia article about the game though curiously that is marked for deletion." - it's possible that Bolton used our article for reference (or written in response to the AfD) therefore we shouldn't accept his or we end up with a "walled garden". Marasmusine (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unfortunate how frequently that happens, but then again Wikipedia is the third Google result and there's presently the red AfD box on it. In this case I'd ask for the benefit of the doubt (If I were bent on journalist-canvassing I'd pick a higher-profile one...) and chalk it up to coincidence combined with lazy journalism. I do see the coverage as conferring some amount of notability, though the walled-garden sourcing does make it unreliable. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks the multiple, non-trivial, reliable secondary sources necessary to demonstrate notability. Someoneanother 02:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You dont have a problem voting delete on this article, but link to several unsourced unreliable wiki articles for other games in your usertalk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.231.108 (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of discussing one or a hundred other game articles, whether they're listed on my talk page or not, this process is about weighing NAEV against WP's policies and guidelines. Someoneanother 14:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby & Hide[edit]

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

Delete looks to be a non-notable rockband, failing WP:MUSIC guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete While GNews turns up more or less zilch for this act (a listing for an upcoming gig is all I found), the band (quoting WP:MUSIC) "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels." The latter is the only reason I'm qualifying my "delete" with "weak." Their label, TEAM AV, has an article on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure that the article wouldn't be fodder for deletion in and of itself, and a GNews search on the label's name doesn't turn up much of anything. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BAND. TEAM AV does have an article, but is unquestionably not a "major label or one of the more important indie labels", even by the absolute loosest interpretation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep waggers (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folktronica[edit]

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

Another neologism. This one means a form dance music that fuses together any number of other genres of music. Not a genre, a neologism that was made up as an umbrella term. No actually style or development history. Ridernyc (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs cleaning up and the list of bands needs to be pruned and sourced, but as far as I'm concerned it's a valid genre. I'm not sure what you'd call bands like Tunng otherwise. Jonchapple (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well-established musical style. The article does need improvements. That is why we have the {{refimprove}} and {{fact}} templates. gidonb (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will then have no problem providing us with references that clearly describes it's characteristics, and development history. Ridernyc (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only timewise. Also, even where I referenced, you did not withdraw your a priori unnecessary AfD. gidonb (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in other words sourcing this is a problem. Ridernyc (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs better referencing. There is no connection, however, between what you wrote in this AfD and Folktronica. gidonb (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide us with the referencing, that describe it's characteristics and development history. Without that we have nothing more then a neologism. Ridernyc (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally subjective and undefinable and unsourced term for another music sub genre. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forked the article to Wikinfo. They allow SPOV and OR, so in time either make this article good enough to justify maintaining or, if deleted, to reintroduce. Just saying.70.54.181.70 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With a few more sources, this could be a more formidable article. It doesn't hurt that a sweeping majority of the listed bands are blue-linked. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And after checking about 10 of them not a single mentions folktronica in their respective articles. Also found one that links to a book and not a musician. Ridernyc (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per solid work by Paul Erik finding sourcing for the term. I would urge anybody who previously voted delete to take a look at the new sourcing and evaluate whether or not you still are in favor of deletion. I don't think it's a blindingly obvious keep but there -is- coverage of the term in reliable sources, and some of it is non-trivial. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

378 Mannock Squadron[edit]

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

Individual cadet units are not considered notable Buckshot06 (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. I prodded this last week, and the author removed it yesterday, adding the unreferenced claim that it's the only unit to be named after a person, Edward Mannock. It seems to me that this would be better mentioned inhis article, than this one, which is about an otherwise unremarkable unit, with nothing else to distinguish it from any other Air Training Corps squadron. David Underdown (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't believe that this meets WP:GNG. Also, I believe there has been precedent regarding ATC squadrons before (but can't for the life of me remember the article in question, unfortunately, for which I apologise). The information about the squadron being the only one to be named after a person is certainly an interesting fact, and assuming it can be sourced, I have no dramas with it being added to the ATC article itself. I don't believe it is enough to make the unit itself notable, however. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Cadet units are not normally notable and I dont see anything different about this one. MilborneOne (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to List of Air Training Corps squadrons. The Mannock connection can be sourced here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MilborneOne - there's a long standing convention that individual cadet units are not normally notable in isolation, and this doesn't appear to be one of the exceptions to the rule. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not redirect. Looking at Pages that link to "List of Air Training Corps squadrons", we don't normally make such links. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holligan[edit]

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

Reason:Article about non-notable group of users posting to a notable blog/forum. No Google hits under 'news' or 'web' searches. Prod tag removed by presumed creator. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN group. CTJF83 chat 10:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I previously added a prod, no reliable sources support this, it was a one off event. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable collectively and individually. There is some synthesis here involving blog entries and a mishmash of unrelated information. As Graeme writes, it was a one off, but did not achieve any notability, so it does not even rise to a level where one would evoke BLP1E. There is a family name "Holligan" that is not connected to this group. With all the "ref's" I could not bring myself to speedily delete, but the links, numerous though they are, do not support a claim to meeting the WP:GNG Dlohcierekim 15:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable neologism. I have reluctantly, and narrowly, declined an A7 speedy, as it could be argued that importance is asserted; but it is certainly not established by the long list of irrelevant references. JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little frustrating in that thing screams out for speedy deletion, but it's either full AFD, SNOW, or IAR. oh well, better safe than sorry. Dlohcierekim 22:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SM City Santa Ana[edit]

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

Previously a speedy deletion and proposed deletion of the article of the hearsay mall. - Gabby 11:16, 09 March 2010 (PST).

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like covert advertisement. --Wicked247 (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I've passed by the place described in the article and, so far, it doesn't look like a mall is being constructed (yet). So the article looks speculative at the very least...I'd say, delete the article unless the real thing gets built finally. Or until more reliable and substantiable sources can be found. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. In the sense of "not delete"; there's no consensus whether to redirect or retain as a separate article, but that can continue to be discussed on the article talk page.  Sandstein  07:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish Wikipedia[edit]

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

Non-notable Internet encyclopedia with <10,000 articles. All coverage is from Wikimedia projects. There are some external links, but they don't form enough content to justify an article. These can be used as sources on Wikipedia or possibly List of Wikipedias. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think there's any chance at all of this being deleted at AfD, and I'd encourage the nominator to read WP:BEFORE more carefully. You could make an argument that "Yiddish Wikipedia" doesn't deserve its own article and it ought to redirect to "List of Wikipedias", but the idea that it doesn't even deserve a redirect will not wash.

    If you wanted to create a redirect, though, then AfD is not the right place to do that. You don't need admin tools to convert something to a redirect, all you need is WP:BRD (and if you're reverted, take it to the talk page). So the AfD process is unnecessary.

    There's also another consideration: the Yiddish Wikipedia is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, and they're the people who pay the bills around here. It's better to shake the hand that feeds you than to bite it.

    My recommendation is speedy close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is at least one reliable source discussing the Yiddish Wikipedia, in English: [25], and apparently some in other languages as well. (I would disagree with S Marshall about whether it is acceptable to take articles about Wikimedia Foundation projects to AfD. Just being part of the Foundation doesn't make a project notable. Other Wikimedia projects need to be notable under WP:WEB to justify having articles about them.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Wikipedias. We shouldn't make it hard for anyone who searches for the Yiddish Wikipedia on this one to find it. However, we shouldn't have a full article on a project that doesn't meet our notability standards for websites. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia and perm-prot. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a distintintive one with a good deal to be said about it . I;'ll look for some more sources. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, have to agree with User:S Marshall. There is obviously some news coverage outside of Wikipedia itself. (And, by the way, it certainly was interesting to read that the Yi-wikipedia has some 49 active editors, and that they mostly write about Hasidic rabbis... ) Vmenkov (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all Wikipedias in other languages should be worthy of their own articles. Dew Kane (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Significant coverage in reliable sources? No evidence of that. All I can see so far is one opinion piece in Forward. We should be very careful not to hold wikimedia websites to a lower standard of notability than other sites. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias

Sakha Wikipedia[edit]

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

Non-notable Internet encyclopedia with <10,000 articles, no sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Wikipedias. We shouldn't make it hard for anyone who searches for the Sakha Wikipedia on this one to find it. However, we shouldn't have a full article on a project that doesn't meet our notability standards for websites. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia and perm-prot. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lombard Wikipedia[edit]

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

Non-notable Internet encyclopedia with <10,000 articles. All coverage is from Wikimedia projects. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Ironholds (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our very own version of bandcruft! Delete as failing general notability guideline due to lack of independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my remarks about the Yiddish Wikipedia above. We might redirect this to the List of Wikipedias (and there's a strongly-arguable case for that) but deleting it outright is not appropriate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Wikipedias. We shouldn't make it hard for anyone who searches for the Lombard Wikipedia on this one to find it. However, we shouldn't have a full article on a project that doesn't meet our notability standards for websites. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia and perm-prot. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, are you really kidding? Are you really planning on deleting a Wikipedia article about Wikipedia? Dew Kane (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Wikipedias for the time being until more refs can be found. Airplaneman talk 16:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Sufficient consensus to keep. Article need better sourcing but not deletion Mike Cline (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of works with different titles in the United Kingdom and United States[edit]

List of works with different titles in the United Kingdom and United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an arbitrary and perpetually incomplete list. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I agree with the nominator, there's nothing specially notable about the inclusion criterion, and such a list can never be complete. JIP | Talk 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:IINFO CTJF83 chat 10:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Remove from British-American English differences, but keep as part of arts-related lists and emphasize interesting marketing aspects as the inclusion criteria. --Wicked247 (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I trusted its accuracy, this list would be fascinating. However, it's totally unsourced, and all of these are "take my word for it" things. Even the links are suspect-- usually, this type of factoid is buried in a trivia section about a film, novel, candy bar, etc., and generally not sourced there either. A lot of times, it's just an urban legend, such as the one that the Chevy Nova had to have a different name in Latin America because "no va" means "it doesn't go" -- not repeated as often now, but not really true to begin with [26]. Maybe the Snickers bar was/is called a Marathon bar over in the U.K., maybe it wasn't, I can't be sure. Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see the list as arbitrary, as the article shows transAtlantic name changes are very common. It doesn't have to be "perpetually incomplete" either, there are after all a finite number of such works. Add sources and keep. There's no mention of the Nova. EamonnPKeane (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add sources per above. Oh and Mandsford - Marathon was indeed the old name for Snickers in this part of the world [27].Keresaspa (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Thanks, Keresaspa! Mandsford (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is interesting and valuable, though I do agree that more references are needed. I made efforts to include references for the items I've included/added to, such as The New York Times reference for Suede/The London Suede U.S. name change and the Official Website of the State of Indiana reference for an official definition of the term "Hoosier". Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    • I agree that this article doesnt belong in the English differences category. A few titles become proverbial, but most are not part of the lexicon.
    • As to perpetually incomplete, the list already has {{Dynamic list}}. EamonnPKeane's comment is wildly optimistic.
    • As to lack of references, adding {{Refimprove}} is more appropriate than deletion (unless one claims the items are inherently unverifiable, which I would dispute).
    • As to arbitrariness, I think there is a worrying vagueness over what "Works" encompasses, or where to draw the line between "title of work" and "brand name of product". I would argue food and toys are definitely out, and games are borderline. The GI Joe movie was not called "Action Man" in the UK. Also, with genericised trademarks, we move away from titles to general vocabulary.
jnestorius(talk) 11:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Because I am not sure of the purpose of a selective list like these--there are hundreds of other works. For example, about 1/3 of PGWodehouse's novels had different titles; a there's a bibliography, I could add them all. Almost all of what is there can be very easily sourced. Forthe ones it libraries, it's just a matter of finding the catalog records. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good comparison. Dew Kane (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I find the reason for keeping this article outweighed by Ginsengbomb's analysis. Further I would advise Green Cardamom to think carefully before accusing another editor of Bad Faith nominations. If you believe that you have "proof" of sockpuppetry, take them to WP:SPI -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sifu Versus[edit]

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

Delete. The notability of this subject seems dubious here, and I'm pretty sure this fails WP:MUSIC. JBsupreme (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are a lot of non-notable music articles (WP:GARAGE), this is not one of them. Nominator did not explain reason for deletion. Also nominator may be using multiple accounts to stack votes, which I can probably prove if an admin wants to contact me in private. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, but what the fuck are you talking about? I happen to know plenty of CheckUser administrators here, if you're going to make claims like that you better back it up. Furthermore I just said this fails WP:MUSIC, that would be my rationale. What's yours? We're not a hosting facility for vanity myspace pages, sorry. JBsupreme (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems kinda strange that a red-link newbie is engaging in AFD's and "knows plenty of CheckUser admins". Surely this is not your first and/or only account, why the multiple accounts? Green Cardamom (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? The "red-link newbie" you are talking to has 26,900 edits to your ~2,200, has been on Wikipedia almost a year longer than you, and spends a lot of time doing good work in AfD. I run into him a lot on here. Who are you? Your assumption of bad faith in this matter is, frankly, completely despicable, and hilariously unjustified. Maybe next time before you saunter in here and start calling people "red-link newbies" you can a) mind your tone, because that's obnoxious and b) learn to use the Edit Count tool. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The sourcing in the article is either photographs, Myspace page, or is a broken link that I also can't seem to find when I attempt to find the sources via a Google search. GNews reveals a handful of mentions, all in Greek. Attempting to read them shows that, whatever their content is, they each afford Sifu Versus the most trivial of mentions. I'm saying "weak" only because I'm wondering if Hood Magazine and Hip Hop Kinima are actually reliable/verifiable sources that I simply can't find a way to access. I tried a few more ways of seeking out these sources and am still coming up empty. Changing my position from weak delete to a good old fashioned, straight up, undiluted "delete."

    Regarding the above comment from Green Cardamom, until and unless JBsupreme actually starts stacking votes in this AfD, I'd consider that to be an outrageous thing to say. You should strike that. And the nominator pretty plainly explained a reason for deletion -- failing WP:MUSIC is, you know, reason for deletion. On the other hand, you did not explain a reason for NOT deleting. You just said "this is not non-notable." Either way, no poisoning the well here, please. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Many sources used on Wikipedia are not readily accessible via the Internet and/or written in English. This is a hard article to verify because 1. One needs to read Greek and 2. The sources are not easily available online. But none of these things are reason to delete the article, they are verification issues. Assume Good Faith before deleting the article and wait for someone else to verify the sources who has access to them and reads Greek. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the problem. You don't need to be able to read Greek to identify the nature of the coverage in the sources that -can- be found, because while the sources are in Greek, they all spell out the name of this artist in the recognizable Roman alphabet, and the artist, without exception in all these sources, appears as one name in a list of other names. It is pretty easy to conclude that the coverage is trivial. If the articles were -about- the artist, his name would appear more than once, and not sandwiched in a list with a bunch of other names, no? These are mentions, not coverage.

    Regarding the sources "not easily available online," that they are impossible to find doesn't somehow make them reliable/verifiable sourcing, and it's the lack of reliable/verifiable sourcing that gives cause for deletion. I was, however, able to find Hood magazine using the Internet Wayback Machine. It is no longer in existence, none of the article content is available any longer, and it appears to be a non-notable Webzine. Hence, it isn't a usable source for conferring notability. It's not a question of the source being "not readily accessible," it's that the source no longer exists. As for Hip Hop Kinima, it bills itself as a portal. I don't know what to make of it. I can't access it because I need a username and password.

    And, nothing personal, but I'm not even touching the irony of you preaching Assume Good Faith, given your grotesque -- and thus far not retracted -- assumption of bad faith concerning the nominator above. If anybody here is acting in extremely bad faith, it is you. AGF doesn't apply to this conversation -- nobody's assuming bad faith in nominating the article for deletion or pointing out the problems with the sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to State House elections in Michigan, 2008#District 56. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Dahm[edit]

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

The article contains multiple issues since it was first created. Two of the three external links in the article are dead, and the working one only vaguely mentions her name. A Google search showed very few results; the only one with any information is her staff page at her job, which is also a non-notable business in Monroe. Apparently, she's a political candidate who was defeated badly in one local election. The subject isn't notable or verifiable enough for an article. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 05:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not quite per nom -- my experience with the external links was dissimilar (the one that works covers Dahm fairly extensively, devoting approximately half its contents to quotes from Dahm) -- but certainly per nom on the notability of this person in general. GNews and other searching doesn't turn up much of anything beyond the one working link, and this is not significant coverage at all. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Taking into consideration that the initial author also doubts the article's notability, I believe consensus here endorses removal. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Parselmouths[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Original reason was:

Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO to me. Google News returns no hits, and the only reliable, third-party source appears to be one mention on MTV.com - not enough to establish notability

I agree with the prod, but an anon IP removed, so procedural AfD. Shadowjams (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created the article in my namespace only, I think an anon moved it to the mainspace. Nonetheless, before you debate; this is worth considering. There seems to be the same article written on many sources which is odd. Plus, the band is only really mentioned in passing. I am leaning delete. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shadowjams: Your Google News link is highly misleading (I am sure unintentionally so -- I know you to be a reliable editor). If one clicks the News link in the AfD template on this page one gets an enormous amount of hits! A number of the articles there are more than mere mentions, and some of the mentions are in publications with names like Time Magazine (not that that's necessarily the salient point here). The article may not make proper use of the available sourcing, but the sourcing certainly seems readily available. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noticing now that you are simply quoting the original PROD. Either way, wanted to make sure you're aware of the issue. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my mistake. I left a message on your talk page, but generally the issue is that the link from the prod that I quoted above is only the recent hits, whereas the template link has the archive search. That's probably the better one. I've struck my delete from above so I can re-evaluate. Shadowjams (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was the procedural nominator but after Ginsengbomb corrected my oversight, I think there are enough reliable sources to keep. As a purely procedural issue, I don't object to SNOW closes or anything similar, but anyone doing so shouldn't read my change of opinion as meaningful (as in a nom withdrawn). In other words, I procedurally nominated a good faith PROD that I now disagree with, but I'd like things to proceed as if the original PROD had done the AfD. Shadowjams (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 08:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 08:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is what I like to see in an AfD discussion. Active editors are encouraged to search for reliable sources and they can then admit that the article has been improved enough to merit staying on WP. Kudos to GinsengBomb and Shadowjams for the hard work. In any case, this is a good example of an article that really needs rescue (or at least expansion) rather than deletion. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Delete Having looked over those articles in the Google News link above, more than half of them just seem to be the same article repeated over and over again ("... The Parselmouths, a Harry Potter-themed duet, performs ..."), and the rest of them seem to be about Wizard Rock in general, rather than being about the band itself. They don't seem to have made any significant chart, they've not had a record go gold or been signed to a major label, so I'm leaning more towards delete. Vobedd731 (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as above, there seem to be very few sources pertaining to the group itself beyond their official myspace and blog, which would surely make verifying any content in their article a little troublesome.81.168.70.117 (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NN musical group. 79.79.161.86 (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete – Agree with orig nomination. not sure how this article has survived for so long. definite non-notable. 217.41.243.16 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nom. It seems worth noting that even major contributor Alex Douglas is "leaning delete". If you ask me, if we've reached the point where even the Wikipedian who has contributed the most to the article thinks that it should be removed, then we should listen to him. 81.105.179.16 (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was the original PROD nominator, so apologies for that misleading Google News link - I should have been more diligent. However, my reservations about this article still stand. As has already been mentioned above, almost all the sources in the Google News archive are either the same article seemingly repeated ad infinitum, or ones that make only a mere mention of The Parselmouths. I don't believe that this band has achieved enough success to warrant a page on Wikipedia, and, even if they had, there doesn't seem to be enough information on reliable sources to verify anything that might appear on it. HiddenApple (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Cited sources do not have to be exclusively about the subject, for it to meet the WP:N notability guideline. Time, Salon, MTV, various American and even Spanish newspapers (e.g., "Y Harry (Potter) cogió su guitarra", El País, October 13, 2008, p. 40) report that this band is a prime example of Wizard Rock. Basic information about the band can be sourced to its own website under the verifiability policy, per WP:SELFPUB. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R. Yesurathnam[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Fails WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question. The article states he was "Principal" at Andhra Christian Theological College. Do we know if this position was the highest academic position at the institution, in which case he would meet WP:PROF #6? Thank you.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is - see Principal (academia). Now, note 13 at WP:PROF interprets this as being a a significant accredited college or university. I can't work out whether Andhra Christian Theological College is accredited or not, though it is affiliated with the Senate of Serampore College (University). But it doesn't seem to be significant. StAnselm (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete: Notability probably hangs on his principalship, rather than publications (which don't seem to be widely cited: GB, GS) or third-party references (which are not to be found in the article). Andhra Christian Theological College is a theological college with 24 staff (by my count). Is that significant? Now that I look at, it WP:PROF seems a little vague. However, I assume that the link to Senate of Serampore College (University) constitutes accreditation: at least the World Council of Churches thinks so. Yesurathnam might also be notable under WP:GNG for his involvement in Hindu-Christian dialogue, although third-party references would need to be dug up on that. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have, however, gone ahead and edited the article to insert the subject's name (Regunta Yesurathnam). It's the kind of minor detail that people might find interesting. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that the main biographical reference in the article is the subject's own book. There are independent refs (which aren't easily verifiable) that back up the information on his degrees and his employment. There's nothing that would indicate notability under WP:GNG (I get 300 ghits on his name, mostly sites selling his book). On reflection, his principalship can probably be treated as equivalent to being "Head of the Theological School" within a larger university. My reading of WP:PROF is that that isn't enough for notability, so I'm saying "delete." -- Radagast3 (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with nom: I don't see how WP:PROF is met, and WP:N doesn't help our subject here. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough.--Pavani (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 2 GS cites. Notability is not established. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. nomination withdrawn NW (Talk) 00:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The terrorists have won[edit]

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

No sources provided which discuss the topic. There seem to have been lots of examples before but they have been removed. Only ref is a dead link. This is a real expression, of course, but it goes back way before 2001 -- contrary to what the article says. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn since sources have been found which establish the notability of the phrase, inaccurate information has been removed from the article, and work is starting on adding well sourced material. I'm sorry I was hasty in nominating it, but it was a very bad article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query Any idea why massive sections of the article were removed around July of 2007? With those reinserted, the article could certainly be salvaged. Outback the koala (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I just blundered upon it checking out some of the anti-terrorism/civil-liberties related articles. If just one good source could be found which discusses the history and meaning of the expression (not just examples of its use) I would gladly vote to keep the article. I have heard this said since the 1980s, so the statement in the article saying it started in 2001 is clearly wrong, as well as now uncited. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll see what I can do about sources. No promises :-) Outback the koala (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Came up with this, which looks very promising. And this, which looks like a blog of some kind- not sure. I'll keep looking around, but that LA times article might be the ticket. Outback the koala (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check out: [Google news archive. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks I will. Outback the koala (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that LA Times article establishes notability. I would withdraw the nomination but if I did that the deletionists would win. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I have 2 very good ones. Clearly seems to provide what we need this and this. Outback the koala (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Good to see others have a sense of humor! XD. Glad I could help. Outback the koala (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to bed now, but I will work on the article soon. I did not nominate it for the purpose of saving it, although I probably should have checked out Google first. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you're reading the article now ("'...the terrorists have won', or '...then the terrorists win' is a rhetorical phrase which was widely used in the wake of the September 11 attacks in the United States.") and saying "WTF?", there used to be more to it [28]. The title has always been incredibly misleading-- the sentiment has never been that "the terrorists have won", but rather a cliche to the effect that "If we do such-and-such out of fear of terrorism, then the terrorists will have succeeded in disrupting our way of life". The phrase "...then the terrorists will have won" was notable during the first years after 9/11, so no delete, but I can't vote to keep this piece-of-crap article either. Perhaps global terrorism has made me indecisive. Mandsford (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a quote which explains the phrase. Outback convinced me that the article should be kept. I am working on it now, although I have other things to do which is slowing me down. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Despite the fact that there were numerous editors who argued that the subject is notable enough for an article on account of his publications, there do not appear to be enough sources or notability proven to meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO. NW (Talk) 18:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ch. Vasantha Rao[edit]

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

This article fails WP:PROF. The subject is the principal of a theological college, and has been a visiting lecturer at Harvard Divinity School. Yet these do not make him notable, and although there is a lot of material in this article, we have here an ordinary academic who has a doctorate and has published a few papers. StAnselm (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding any citations on GS or GB, however -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entry made on article talk page by single-purpose account Puzul (talk | contribs), 12:35, 9 March 2010:
"keep the article, the notability of the person is already established with his being a Senior Visiting Scholar at the Harvard University's Divinity School, Cambridge, USA, his contribution in the field of ecology from the biblical perspective is noteworthy,see reviews of his books in various journals, what one calls trivial may not be taken as trivial, they are facts and establish the person, I strongly vote the article to be kept and not disturbed"
Two other single-purpose accounts, Ceseo (talk | contribs) and Bingiri7 (talk | contribs) have added similar comments: see Talk:Ch. Vasantha Rao. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The most notable thing here is the principalship, which I don't think satisfies WP:PROF: see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Yesurathnam. -- Radagast3 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clearly worthy person but sources of notability are not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepOn the norms of "verifiable" the following reviews and studies have been published just recently, I publish them here for information -
    1. Rao, Chilkuri Vasantha, Ecological and Theological Aspects of Some Animal Laws in the Pentateuch, Delhi: ISPCK, 2005, xvii + 364 – Reviewed by Arun Kumar Wesley, In: Asia Journal of Theology, Vol. 21, Number 1, April 2007, pp. 170-172.
    2. Ecological and Theological Aspects of Some Animal Laws in the Pentateuch, by Chilkuri Vasantha Rao, Delhi: ISPCK, 2005, xvii, 364, Rs. 3000.00; ISBN 81-7214-911-5 - Reviewed by Jesudason Baskar Jeyaraj, MA, M.Th, PhD (Sheffield), former Professor and Head of OT Dept., TamilNadu Theological Seminary, Madurai, Adjuct Faculty at SAIACS, Bangalore, Visiting Professor, ACTS Academy of Higher Education, Bangalore, Hon. Director, Jubilee Institute, Madurai, India, In: Dharma Deepika: A South Asian Journal of Missiological Research, Issue 30, Vol. 13, No. 2, July – Dec. 2009, pp. 88-90.
    3. Ecological and Theological Aspects of Some Animal Laws in the Pentateuch. By Chilkuri Vasantha Rao, Delhi: ISPCK, 2005. Pp xvii + 364, ISBN 81-7214-911-5 – Reviewed by Fr. Mathew PALACHUVATTIL, Holy Trinity Regional Major Seminary, Jalandhar, In: Vidyajyothi Journal of Theological Reflection, Vol. 73, No. 12, Dec. 2009, pp. 66-67.
    4. Chilkuri Vasantha Rao, Let the Mother Bird God... Preservation Motif in Pentateuch (Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2007), xx + 112, - Reviewed by Vincent Castilino, In: Mission Today (earlier known as Indian Missiological Review) Vol. XII, No. 1, Jan-March 2010, p. 85.
    5. Bible Study 1: Chilkuri Vasantha Rao, “Ecological Concept in Genesis Chapter One”, In: Green Gospel, edd. Thomas Samuel and Mathew Koshy Punnackadu, Tiruvalla: Jointly published by Christava Sahitya Samithy & CSI Synod Ecological Concerns Committee, 2010, pp. 11-17.
    6. Bible Study 2: Chilkuri Vasantha Rao, “No Way Different: Genesis 2:4-9 & 19”, In: Green Gospel, edd. Thomas Samuel and Mathew Koshy Punnackadu, Tiruvalla: Jointly published by Christava Sahitya Samithy & CSI Synod Ecological Concerns Committee, 2010, pp. 118-122, the article may be retained, these sources may be added.
--Puzul (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC) — Puzul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You appear to be saying that his books have had book reviews. I'm not sure that counts as notability under WP:PROF. If many people bought them, or if many libraries had a copy, or if they were widely cited, that would count. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I point out that many hundreds of citations are usually considered necessary to qualify under WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Considering the fact that the field of ecotheology in India is in its fledgling stage, I think Rev. Dr. Chilkuri Vasantha Rao's contributions are very crucial, and therefore this article should not be deleted. Thank you!Savethebluemarble (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC) — Savethebluemarble (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Title: Let the mother bird go -- : preservation motif in Pentateuch 
Author: Vasantha Rao, Chilkuri Accession Number: 166317655 

Libraries Worldwide:
US,IL	JKM LIBR	
US,IL	UNIV OF CHICAGO	
US,IL	UNIV OF ILLINOIS	
US,IL	WHEATON COL	
US,CA	ALIBRIS		
US,CA	UNIV OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY	
US,CA	UNIV OF CALIFORNIA, N REG LIBR	
US,CT	YALE UNIV LIBR	
US,DC	LIBRARY OF CONGRESS	
US,GA	EMORY UNIV	
US,HI	UNIV OF HAWAII AT MANOA LIBR	
US,IA	UNIV OF IOWA LIBR	
US,KY	ASBURY THEOL SEMINARY	
US,MA	GORDON-CONWELL THEOL SEMINARY	
US,MA	HARVARD UNIV, DIVINITY SCH LIBR	
US,MA	HARVARD UNIV, HARVARD COL LIBR	
US,MI	UNIV OF MICHIGAN LIBR	
US,MN	UNIV OF MINNESOTA, MINNEAPOLIS	
US,NC	BAKER & TAYLOR INC TECH SERV & PROD DEV	  	
US,NC	DUKE UNIV LIBR	
US,NJ	PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY	
US,NY	NEW YORK PUB LIBR RES LIBR	
US,OH	UNITED THEOL SEMINARY	
US,PA	LUTHERAN THEOL SEMINARY	
US,PA	PALMER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY	  
US,WI	UNIV OF WISCONSIN, MADISON, GEN LIBR SYS	
Hong Kong	HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIV	  	
India	D.K. AGENCIES LTD	  	
South Africa	UNISA: MUCKLENEUK MAIN CAM	


Title: Ecological and theological aspects of some animal laws in the pentateuch 
Author: Vasantha Rao, Chilkuri Accession Number: 85016857 

Libraries worldwide:
US,IL	JKM LIBR	
US,CA	ALIBRIS		
US,DC	LIBRARY OF CONGRESS	
US,MA	HARVARD UNIV, DIVINITY SCH LIBR	
US,NC	BAKER & TAYLOR INC TECH SERV & PROD DEV	  	
US,NJ	DREW UNIV LIBR	
US,NJ	PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY	
US,OH	OCLC TRAINING & ILLIAD PARTICIPANT	
US,PA	LUTHERAN THEOL SEMINARY	
US,PA	PALMER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY	  
India	D.K. AGENCIES LTD	

Title: Jathara : a festival of Christian witness 
Author: Vasantharao, Chilkuri Accession Number: 299028522 

US,IL	JKM LIBR	
US,CA	FULLER THEOL SEMINARY	
US,MA	BOSTON COL	
US,NY	COLUMBIA UNIV	
India	D.K. AGENCIES LTD	  	
Netherlands	UNIVERSITEIT UTRECHT

Title: Heads and tales 
Author: Vasantha Rao, Chilkuri Accession Number: 368252173 

US,IL	JKM LIBR	
US,MA	HARVARD UNIV, DIVINITY SCH LIBR	
US,PA	LUTHERAN THEOL SEMINARY	
US,PA	PALMER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kneemail (talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC) — Kneemail (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP I have been reading Dr. Vasantha Rao's books and have known him for years and was glad meeting him at Harvard. He has truly contributed a lot to the world of Theology. His work, his associations, his writings, speak volumes about his impeccable personality and contributions. I totally disagree with the statements above, that clearly reflects personal humiliation and drawing conclusions with false justifications. I strongly feel, either one should respect other's work irrespective of caste, culture, nationality and religion or in-case of not agreeing, should have a dialogue to stand corrected on the wrong perceptions. Some how it feels, that some one is trying to demean Dr. Rao's work and i think one can easily make out that it is a purposeful effort to insult him. Dr. Rao contributed a lot for the upliftment of Dalit Christians, & Rural areas in AP. Dr. Rao: We support you and you are worthy to be in Wikipedia where we can continue to learn from your works. God Bless.--Ambrose2010 (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC) — Ambrose2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Nobody is denying that Dr. Vasantha Rao is a very worthy person. However, what we are discussing here is whether the article on him satisfies Wikipedia guidelines, especially the guidelines in WP:Notability (academics). Several of the statements made in support of the article do not address this issue. Kneemail is one of the few people who have put forward relevant information: the library holdings of Dr. Vasantha Rao's books, though not extremely high, are still an argument in favour of keeping the article. You raise an interesting point by saying "Dr. Rao contributed a lot for the upliftment of Dalit Christians, & Rural areas in AP." Regrettably, we cannot take your personal opinion on this into account, and this point is not discussed in the article. However, if you were to add a discussion of this to the article, backed up by WP:Reliable sources, this would also be a point in favour of keeping the article. One likely problem here is that the article probably does not do justice to Dr. Vasantha Rao's work, and probably does a poor job of explaining his importance. Those of us discussing the article have done our best to find additional information about him on Google, but there is not very much to find. In the end, the decision on whether to keep or delete the article will be made largely on the basis of the article as written. StAnselm has tried to improve the article, but not many other people seem to have assisted in this. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Principal of a theological college (though currently perhaps not yet in office); one of a team of Bible translators. Seems notable to me. I do not think we should expect the same level of coverage for an Indian academic as for a Western one. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't think we should relax the notability requirement for Indian academics. That would be a little patronizing. But we should be aware that (1) a smaller percentage of sources will exist in English, and (2) a smaller percentage will exist online. For that reason we rely on local editors to dig up sources that Google can't find.
And, once again, the subject of the article may not be a notable academic, but still meet general notability requirements. It has been suggested that his work with Dalit Christians falls into that category, although following up the links from Dalit theology I find no mention of his name. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why AfD discussion last for a week. But nothing new has been added to the article. StAnselm (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite being long and heavily sourced, most of the sourcing is very poor and shows no evidence of passing WP:GNG. And the only real shot of passing WP:PROF, the college presidency, seems dubious to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Many libraries have a copy.--Pavani (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide evidence to support the above claim? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Someone dug out what seems to be a complete list of library holdings for his books (see box above). I'm not sure what threshold we normally use for library holdings as an indicator of notability. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:keep the article, the notability of the person is already established with his being a Senior Visiting Scholar at the Harvard University's Divinity School, Cambridge, USA, his contribution in the field of ecology from the biblical perspective is noteworthy,see reviews of his books in various journals, what one calls trivial may not be taken as trivial, they are facts and establish the person, I strongly vote the article to be kept and not disturbed--Bingiri7 (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC) — Bingiri7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP :Dr.Vasantha Rao's books in favour of keeping this article.Dr Vasantha Rao contributed a lot for the upliftment of Dalit christian ,and rural areas in Andhra Pradesh .I have been reading Dr Vasantha Rao's books and know him for years and was glad meeting him at Harvard. He has truly contributed a lot to the world of Theology. This person is a very accomplished theologian in India and has made innumerable contributions to the topic of religions in India ,especially rural India.I voch for Rev.Dr.Chilkuri Vasantha Rao and strongly feel that this article should be kept so that many like me may be inspired by his work.--Stafa80 (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC) — Stafa80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I believe Ambrose2010 has already made similar points. We would certainly appreciate a reliable source on his "upliftment" work. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP :Saw the deletion flag go up on Dr. Vasanth last week. I have known him personally and also as an alumnus of ACTC. But that is not good enough to recommend a 'keep' on his page. So here is what I could put together over the weekend. Hope the following list of his writings through the years stand in good stead for the 'keep' recommendation.

“Be the Church God Meant You to Be, in: Golden Jubilee Souvenir, ed. P. A. Solomon Raj, Hyderabad: Church of South India Wesley Church Musheerabad, 1989, no date, 3 pages.

“Church Music in Andhra Pradesh with Special Reference to Medak Dicoese, in: Cross the Only Hope, ed. N. S. Prakasham, Hyderabad: Medak Diocese, No Date, Pages 15-18.

“Christ the High Priest”, in: A Handbook of Sermon Outlines, ed. G. Dyvasirvadam, Madras: Pastoral Aid Department, Church of South India, 1994, pp. 60-63

“Pentecost I & II”, in: A Handbook of Sermon Outlines, ed. G. Dyvasirvadam, Madras: Pastoral Aid Department, Church of South India, 1994, pp. 64-69

“Trinity Sunday”, in: A Handbook of Sermon Outlines, ed. G. Dyvasirvadam, Madras: Pastoral Aid Department, Church of South India, 1994, pp. 70-72

“The Call of God”, in: A Handbook of Sermon Outlines, ed. G. Dyvasirvadam, Madras: Pastoral Aid Department, Church of South India, 1994, pp. 73-75

“Ascension Day”, in: A Handbook of Sermon Outlines, ed. G. Dyvasirvadam, Madras: The Pastoral Aid Department, Church of South India, 1994, pp. 166-168

“Preservation Motif in Pentateuch”, National Christian Council Review, Vol. 116, (1996), pp. 740-755.

“Nature Eco-Concern: Plants”, in: Wing of Faith, Invitation, Vol. Two, ed. B. D. Prasad, Chennai: Christian Education Department, Church of South India, 1999, pp. 31-33.

“Nature Eco-Concern: Trees”, in: Wing of Faith, Invitation, Vol. Two, ed. B. D. Prasad, Chennai: Christian Education Department, Church of South India, 1999, pp. 36-38.

“Nature Eco-Concern: Animals”, in: Wing of Faith, Invitation, Vol. Two, ed. B. D. Prasad, Chennai: Christian Education Department, Church of South India, 1999, pp. 39-41.

“Nature Eco-Concern: Birds”, in: Wing of Faith, Invitation, Vol. Two, ed. B. D. Prasad, Chennai: Christian Education Department, Church of South India, 1999, pp. 42-44.

“Nature Eco-Concern: Lakes, Rivers and Seas”, in: Wing of Faith, Invitation, Vol. Two, ed. B. D. Prasad, Chennai: Christian Education Department, Church of South India, 1999, pp. 45-48.

“Nature Eco-Concern: Hills and Forests”, in: Wing of Faith, Invitation, Vol. Two, ed. B. D. Prasad, Chennai: Christian Education Department, Church of South India, 1999, pp. 49-51

“Come, Let Us Renew and Reconcile Our People”, in: Unite – Liberate – Celebrate, ed. P. Surya Prakash, Chennai: The Pastoral Aid Department, Church of South India, 2007, pp. 25-28.

“M. M. Thomas’ Biblical Interpretation and the Use of the Old Testament”, National Christian Council Review, Vol. 117, (1997), pp. 311-319

“The Medak Diocese”, in: United to Unite – History of the Church of South India 1947-1997, ed. J. W. Gladstone, Chennai: CSI Synod, 1997, pp. 293-304

“Glimpses of Subaltern History of Medak Diocese: A Women’s Perspective”, in: CSI Women’s Fellowship Golden Jubilee Souvenir, ed. Sunitha, Hyderabad : Women’s Fellowship Medak Diocese, 1998, pp. 80-84

“The Plight: Dalit Awareness”, in: Struggles to Celebrate Life: Biblical Reflections on Women, Dalits & Media, ed. Moses Paul Peter, Bangalore: Students Christian Movement of India, 1998, pp. 19-26

“The Fight: Dalit Struggle”, in: Struggles to Celebrate Life: Biblical Reflections on Women, Dalits & Media, ed. Moses Paul Peter, Bangalore: Students Christian Movement of India, 1998, pp. 27-32

“The Fight: Dalit Emancipation”, in: Struggles to Celebrate Life: Biblical Reflections on Women, Dalits & Media, ed. Moses Paul Peter, Bangalore: Students Christian Movement of India, 1998, pp. 33-37

“Ecumenism in a Pluralistic Context: An Old Testament View”, in: Ecumenism Prospects and Challenges, Festschrift to the Rev. G. Dyvasirvadam, edd. V. Victor, L. Nathaniel and P. S. Prakash, Delhi: India Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, for the Church of South India Synod Youth Department & Synod Pastoral Aid Department 2001, pp. 180-192

“Dalit Participation in the Lectura Popular Project”, in: Interkulturelle Hermeneutik und Lectura Popular- Neuere Konzepte in Theorie and Praxis, edd. S. Joneleit-Oesch und M. Neubert (Beiheft zur Oekumenishchen Rundschau, Vol. 72), Frankfurt a.M.: Verlag Otte Lembeck, 2002, pp. 65-82

“Indegenous and Foreign Influences on the Church in Andhra”, Ashram Mitra, ed. Vasant Bawa, Vol. 6, (2003), pp. 5-7.

“The Division of the Kingdom: Its Causes and Consequences”, Indian Journal of Theology, Vol. 45, No. 1 & 2, (2003), pp. 41-50

“The Right to Life in Human Discourse: Emphasis on Animal Life”, Religion and Society, Vol. 50, No. 4, (December 2005), pp. 13-30

“Ascension of our Lord”, in: Oasis, ed. Mathew Varkey, Chennai: The Pastoral Aid Department, Church of South India, 2006, pp. 94-96

“Courage in God’s Service”, in: Oasis, ed. Mathew Varkey, Chennai: The Pastoral Aid Department, Church of South India, 2006, pp. 190-191.

“Devuni Rajyamu Neethi Rajyamu” (Telugu), in: Karimnagar Adyaksha Mandalam, ed. B. Sadanamdam, Karimnagar: Dakshana India Sangham, Karimnagar Adyaksha Mandalam, December 2007, pp. 9-10.

“Biblical Teaching on Sensitivity towards People of Other Faiths”, Aikyatha: A Publication of the Student Christian Movement of India, March 2007, pp. 46-49.

“Arohanamu” (Telugu), in: Karimnagar Adyaksha Mandalam, ed. P. Baburao, Karimnagar: Dakshana India Sangham, Karimnagar Adyaksha Mandalam, Jan.-Feb. 2008, pp. 16-17.

“Church’s Ministry of Education”, in: Rhema, ed. U. Gandhi, Chennai: The Pastoral Aid Department, Church of South India, 2008, pp. 145-147.

“Ascension Day: Christ – Lord of All”, in: Fotizei, ed. S. Jayaseelan, Chennai: The Pastoral Aid Department, Church of South India, 2009, pp. 53-55.

“Education: Search for True Knowledge”, in: Fotizei, ed. S. Jayaseelan, Chennai: The Pastoral Aid Department, Church of South India, 2009, pp. 62-64.

“Ecological Crisis: Scientific Technology and Religious Indictment”, in: National Conference on Science and Religious Technological Advancement in Science and its Socio-Religious Impact, edd. Jagdhari Mashi, Samuel Richmond, et al. Allahabad: University Publication Division, AIIDU, 2009, pp. 31-45

“Ecological Concept in Genesis Chapter One”, in: Green Gospel, edd. Thomas Samuel and Mathew Koshy Punnackadu, Tiruvalla: Jointly published by Christava Sahitya Samithy & Church of South India Synod Ecological Concerns Committee, 2010, pp. 11-17. “No Way Different: Genesis 2:4-9 & 19”, in: Green Gospel, edd. Thomas Samuel and Mathew Koshy Punnackadu, Tiruvalla: Jointly published by Christava Sahitya Samithy & Church of South India Synod Ecological Concerns Committee, 2010, pp. 118-122. Theghostwhodied (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC) — Theghostwhodied (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Being a college principal is not enough for passing WP:PROF; not much else in the record to indicate academic notability. Nsk92 (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! I have been reading Dr. Vasantha Rao's writings. He is an academician in every sense of the term. He taught for several years and in various continents. He wrote numerous articles and books in English, German and Telugu. I hope race is not a factor for these cries for deletion of this entry.Cicero2010 (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC) — Cicero2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

One editor above suggested that standards for notability of Indian academics should be lower than for others but this was not supported. A feature of this AfD debate is that the arguments for delete are mostly from established editors while those for keep are mostly from spas. It is time for this debate to be closed. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Nothing I've seen in the very spirited defense of this academic by his friends convinces me that he passes our thresholds for WP:PROF or any other WP:BIO guideline. The "principal" aspect of his position is a subordinate position inside a larger university; furthermore, by special arrangement it is a strictly term-limited rotating position, and hence is insufficient for notability. RayTalk 03:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Ray's Above comment dose not hold good since he is no longer a member on Wikipedia--Ceseo (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)— Ceseo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Woogee (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G. Babu Rao[edit]

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

Non-notable scholar and author StAnselm (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MTV's Greatest Mcs Of All Time[edit]

AfDs for this article:
MTV's Greatest Mcs Of All Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MTV and similar programs constantly do silly one-hour Greatest Poop-Sweepers Of All Time programs; the lists these programs produce are, despite being verifiable, not necessarily notable. In this case, even verifiability is unproven, indicating it may fail not only WP:NOT but also WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A list from a show..., OK, how is it notable? -RobertMel (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability of the show. It merely gives a list of what MTV opinionated. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 05:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While the discussion has not yet lasted seven days, I'm closing this currently as the attack component within the article qualifies it for G10 deletion per the later commentors. Also, one of the keep comments is procedural in nature and has been addressed by two other participants. The other keep comment is contingent on references being added, but given that the negative BLP material goes back to the first revision of the article, that should trump the possibility of sourcing the article and expanding it later. At this point, the comments on the unsourced negative BLP component are strong and justify an early close. —SpacemanSpiff 06:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Liberation Front[edit]

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

This is clearly a ZOG page made to try to destroy the blue-eyed founder of the Aryan Liberation Front, and to make sure we lose to ZOG. ZOG-controlled Wikipedia will probably keep this page but WOTAN. Wonderful Ginger (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural Keep This vote is user's first contribution and entire rationale is a confusing rant which I think is about Zionism or something. I would advise the nominator to rewrite their rationale to be clearer and touch on exactly why they feel the article should be deleted. Nate • (chatter) 04:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those who may not know, ZOG stands for Zionist Occupation Government. WOTAN stands for Will Of The Aryan Nation. Although the Nom may have some ties to antisemitism, I believe that since this user is brand new, they probably just haven't read any of Wikipedia's policies, such as assuming good faith. I left a note on the user's talk page welcoming them. I see no problem with any of the user's edits or this AfD Nom. Avicennasis @ 08:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this was procedurally kept, then I would re-nominate it for deletion, on the grounds that it is a potentially controversial article (about a racially-charged subject) and it does not include any reliable sources--or in fact any sources at all. That's not okay.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I assumed that "Zog" was the king of Albania and that "Wotan" was a god. Thanks for the clarification. Edison (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeletePer WP:BLP1E. Google Book search shows some brief mentions. See [29], [30]. Seems deletable as a one time news story. Is there evidence the "group" was ever more than one angry teenager? [31] says the "group" was unheard of before one 17 year old committed some hate-inspired firebombings. See[32], [33]. Edison (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP1E isn't something we need to consider here because an article about a political organisation isn't a biography of a living person. Our focus should be on the lack of sources.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the bizarre and grandiose nomination, I agree that the article should be deleted, but for me the grounds are good old-fashioned lack of notability. Very few meaningful g-hits, even less for its supposed ex-leader. The King of Albania may want to keep it, but what does he know ;-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For an idea of similar articles, see the orgainizations listed in the Template:White nationalism. Based on the other articles, I would say this fails WP:NOTE, and would normally vote Delete, however in the interest of avoiding WP:COI, I am not actually voting here. (Although, at the current time, it seems Delete is the consensus here anyway.) Avicennasis @ 06:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the references are added. As the background for the news event it is justified; However, there is a BLP consideration: I think the refs are not sufficient to establish Alexis Leirsun as the leader -- the article on him was previously deleted via G10 twice and then A7. That mention would need to be removed. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alexis Leirsund and the ALF were the subjects of high-profile investigations by right-wing Zionist lunatics in 2007 and 2008 in which CIA and Mossad are believed to be involved. The ZOG has repeatedly characterized them as the #1 domestic terror threat in America (a place that actually is held by International Jewry) The Giver in Buggery (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Indented, blocked user, possible sockpuppet  Chzz  ►  03:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per S Marshall and Dylanfromthenorth; bottom line is, no sources. If the possibly-negative unsourced info is removed, there is nothing left.  Chzz  ►  03:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears intended as an attack page, and borders on the speedy-able given the utter lack of sourcing. No prejudice against recreation as a properly framed/referenced article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced attack page about non-notable person. Edward321 (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. How could this sit for 7 days without being G10'd? This falls squarely within WP:CSD#G10 as a negative article on an organisation (and named persons) that is entirely unsourced. Perhaps a properly sourced article can be constructed (no doubt highly negative) about the subject. That would be fine. But unsourced attacks on all persons and organisations must be treated the same. That this is about a claimed white supremacist group makes the application of G10 no different. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn and moved to Metro All Stars. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mangold[edit]

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

Absolutely no sources found. Metro All Stars don't turn up any reliable sources despite one album on the notable MTM Records. No sources found for the band or for Mangold. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plead the Fifth (Album)[edit]

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

Future Event Haruth (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Hate the Living![edit]

The Dead Hate the Living! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No non-trivial coverage. Director links to a football coach. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems to have about the same amount of coverage as most indie genre films. Granted, it's not the type of movie that makes the cover of Entertainment Weekly, but there's plenty of reviews, plus coverage in an article called "When Zombies Attack! A History of the Undead In Film" from the Chicago Sun-Times, and a number of references in books on horror movies (Zombie Movies: The Ultimate Guide, Book of the dead: the complete history of zombie cinema, and The Horror Film: An Introduction). Taken together, there's enough to support an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that when good sources are found in an AfD they should be added, though the suggestion is a bit terse and the combination of the nom "no non-trivial coverage" (in the article, or the nom followed WP:BEFORE and is making the claim that there's no non-trivial coverage anywhere?) with "so fix it" sounds a bit like AfD is being used here as a tool to fix articles? I hope that's not the case.
In looking for sources on genre movies, unfortunately not many genre magazines are indexed or even thoroughly self-indexed, but searching those magazines' own sites sometimes turns up some degree of indexing (e.g. TDHtL! on cover of and article in Rue Morgue #13 [34] and searching sites that sell magazine back issues will sometimes show you whether the movie made the front cover or whether there's an article about it inside. E.g. eBay shows that it's included on the cover of the March 2000 Fangoria with a four page article inside, and mentioned on the cover of Femme Fatales v.8#10, with an article of at least three pages inside. It speaks to notability and would be worth adding if somebody had the articles, but I'm less certain as to whether it's worth adding when one doesn't. Perhaps as "WP:FURTHERREADING"? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for myself and found none of the sources you dug up, just one sentence mentions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 16:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TPH... we need to sharpen your goggle-foo. It was not too difficult to find lengthy reviews at Fatally Yours, Beyond Hollywod, Twilight Mag (German), Horror Online (Polish), Cine Fantastico (Spanish), eFilm Critic, MTV, Seattle Times, and quite a few others apart from all the lessor mentions. I accept that you did look... just perhaps not hard enough. "sofixit" is a nice demand, but that is not what AFD is for. Multiple decent sources exist that show notability through WP:GNG. That's enough for me to politely request you withdraw this nomination. Thank you.... (and yes, I'll try to add them myself if no one else bothers)... Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient non-trivial coverage exists in reliable sources that discusses the film directly in detail, meeting the requirements of WP:N. Adding those sources to the article is a part of "normal editing" as described in WP:BEFORE. An article with sources that exists but are not added to the article is not a good candidate for AfD, rather it is a good candidate for expansion and improvement. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per availability of multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage of the film. I would encourage such coverage implemented in the Wikipedia article to more clearly reflect its qualification as an article. Erik (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly was easy enough to have done, so I did some. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I found it easy to get references for the article, so its certainly notable enough. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 05:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep The nominator changed his position. Non-admin closure. -RobertMel (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Science[edit]

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

I don't think this belongs as a Wikipedia article. It seems rather silly, taking into account how large of a topic science is. EMS24 02:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Why delete? I think it makes perfect sense to have the criticism section of the science article break into its own article. It was getting to bulky for the main science page anyway. It should be able to break off and expand into its own article- Its a decent enough subject, sources are reliable, their all from the original science article, and im adding more critiqes to the other sections as I type this, so whats the deal? Just because science is a large topic it shouldnt have a criticism page? With that logic why does it have its own article to begin with. (Update) Wikipedia has articles dedicated to topics like subgenres of punk music- which a very large topic as well when you dig deep enough, but it broke off from the punk page and became its own article. If wiki can allow that, but not critiques of science, thats a bit of a dissapointment ProductofSociety (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Um, where does 'sillyness' come in on the wiki deletion policy page? Murderd2death (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator has not given a good reason for deletion. This article has forked out of a section that was growing too large. It is sourced. It is a legitimate topic for an article. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see your point. It should be kept. —EMS24 03:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Article is far from perfect, but the subject is notable. -RobertMel (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 by Dragonflysixtyseven. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Material[edit]

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

What's the notability of this? I googled the title but there was nothing about a rock band. EMS24 01:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as A7 (non-admin closure) Reach Out to the Truth 20:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stubborn Gorilla Studios[edit]

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

I don't see any notability for this. Apart from their website, there isn't a single relevant result in a Google search. EMS24 01:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fall from Heaven[edit]

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

Non-notable demo that has not been mentioned in reliable sources. Article has been tagged for more references since its creation two years ago. Demo is already discussed in history section at Sonic Syndicate. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - evidence is mounting that articles for the band's three early demo albums have been repeatedly deleted and re-created under slightly different names. Would WP:SALT be an effective remedy? DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to Heavy horse and keep. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy horse (disambiguation)[edit]

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

I don't believe this disambiguation page is necessary. Right now, Heavy horse redirects to Draft horse, which has a hatnote pointing at this DAB page. The DAB page links to Draft horse and Heavy Horses, a Jethro Tull album. Right now I see three ways this could go per WP:DAB:

In any case, the article Heavy horse (disambiguation) should not be required. –Grondemar 04:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent. Here's the situation: "heavy horse" OR "heavy horses" happens to be a common, colloquial, but not terribly correct term (singular or plural) for a draft horse. Essentially, what I'm after is simply for people who are searching on that term to not be dead-ended with looking either for the horse or the album. Probably your first solution above is the best, but I couldn't make the {{redirect}} hatnote work for anything other than a disambiguation page, so in frustration, I created one. Also, I put a hatnote on Heavy Horses directing people looking for the animal, that's done already If you can fix that redirect template problem, I am not terribly wedded to having a two-entry disambig page. So whatever gets people looking for one to have directions if they land on the other. Montanabw(talk) 05:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then Redirect to the Jethro Tull album, with a link back to Draft horse from there and put hatnotes on either article. There is no need to merge anything, as there is little in the way of content that can be merged to the album, with the possible exception to the back link of the colloquialism. I'm working from Montanabw's comment for this one - this seems to be the most logical approach. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I DO think that "heavy horse" should redirect to Draft Horse, which it does currently, But we need a hat note at that article that reads "Heavy horse directs here, for the Jethro Tull album, see Heavy Horses" But I can't make a template do that! (arrgh). Montanabw(talk) 22:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check Draft horse now, I believe I have the hatnote set up like you wanted. You needed to add another couple of fields to the {{redirect}} template; see WP:HATNOTE. –Grondemar 23:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I can go either way; as the term is a colloquialism, the JT album would be most logical, but what goes over more common usage should get the win here. =) Altered my !vote accordingly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivilant The horse of the heavy cavalry was primarily the Destrier, which was NOT, contrary to modern myth (including that of several draft breed registries) a draft horse. That said, if the term "heavy horse" DOES refer to heavy cavalry anywhere else besides a Mel Gibson movie, I wouldn't complain, either. Montanabw(talk) 00:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found some references: one regarding ancient roman cavalry, one about macedonians, and one with a whole range of examples. There are some others, but those give a good range of showing that it's not a completely unknown term (even ignoring Mel Gibson). VernoWhitney (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Heavy cavalry is a reasonable entry on the disambiguation page. Since there seems to be disagreement whether Draft horse or Heavy Horses should be the primary topic, I think the third option above is best: move Heavy horse (disambiguation) to Heavy horse, overwriting the redirect. Thoughts? –Grondemar 02:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK by me. I think that the disambiguation term should be "heavy horse," singular, as heavy cavalry horses were not draft horses as we know them today, and hence the term can refer to two different sorts of animals. (For anyone who cares, the modern Andalusian horse is more what the medieval knight's horse was like, and for people such as the ancient Persians, the animals were smaller yet... ironically. ) Montanabw(talk) 22:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to Delete this article and make Heavy horse the WP:DAB page (with Heavy cavalry added). I think I didn't read your three proposals clearly enough last week, but this choice (#3) seems the best to me as there doesn't seem to be a primary topic. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is better served by a redirect to draft horse, with a hatnote link leading to the album. JIP | Talk 07:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with VernoWhitney and Grondemar. "Heavy horse" might well mean "Heavy cavalry" instead of "Draft horse". There's some potential value in a disam page here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added "Courser (horse), a warhorse ridden by armoured knights during the Middle Ages.". A heavy horse is a term sometimes used for the big horses needed for heavily armoured knights, in contrast to Lighthorse and Light cavalry. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Montanabw mentioned above, that should probably be Destrier, not Courser. Also, when I was doing some research into adding Heavy cavalry to the list (again, above), I didn't notice anything that referred to an individual warhorse as a heavy horse, just the armored units of cavalry. Are there sources backing up that usage of the term? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that you did add Destrier to the page. That'll teach me to speak before actually reading. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added Destrier only after you loaded the page. "Heavy horse" is not well defined. I understand it to mean roughly: a horse capable of carrying a person into battle who is so heavily armoured that he cannot mount the horse unassisted, or without a platform. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, I tossed both courser and destrier in favor of Heavy cavalry, as the term addresses armament, not the horse type, Heavy cavalry dates back to the ancient Persians, who rode neither coursers nor destriers. (Actually, by today's standards, even the medieval animals weren't really all that huge) And actually, coursers were lighter and faster. Similarly, "light horse" references unarmored animals, some of which were actually about the same size, if not larger, than the medieval animals who carried knights. None of which were draft horses as we know them today (When working on Horses in warfare and Horses in the Middle Ages, we actually wound up exploding several dearly held myths about the topic...sigh...) As for whether the disambig is named Heavy horse or Heavy horse (disambiguation), I honestly could not care either way. Montanabw(talk) 23:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tossed both courser and destrier in favor of Heavy cavalry. You did good. Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point with the development of the disambiguation page, I recommend closing this discussion as Keep, and then moving the article to Heavy horse overwriting the redirect currently at this name. The final name of the disambiguation page would not include "(disambiguation)" per WP:DABNAME. –Grondemar 04:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same result as I intended with my delete !vote above, so it works for me. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but someone be sure to fix the dab links in the articles. Montanabw(talk) 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus seems to be very strong for keep. Most of the few objections were that the article was too brief, and I agree it is, but that's just a request to expand it. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic music[edit]

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

Original research essay. Not a genre, and not a style of music. Ridernyc (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a real expression but should be a dictionary entry. Note that the article is not about the topic, which would include all music before the 1950s and most since, but about the expression -- hence a dictionary item. Could be mentioned in the article on "electric music," whatever that is called. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it covers such a huge topic it is hard to see how it could ever be a viable article.--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a lot of music genre articles which covers a number of topics, but were split up into separate articles. That's why you can split an article into separate articles. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there's way to much splitting and that's part of the problem we a trying to fix now. Ridernyc (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure if it merits deletion. There may be scope for an article under this title, but presently it does appear to be a dictionary entry rather than an encyclopaedia article. I also cannot see how it can be called a 'genre' when you can have acoustic versions of every kind of music under the sun. "Acoustic music" is a description of how music may be performed, it is not a description of the style or genre of the music itself. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that it is not a genre unto itself, I would argue that it is more of a performance style very prevalent in some modern genres and in all traditional genres. There is a reason Pandora Radio sorts music based on "acoustic sonority" and there are publications dedicated to "acoustic music" (e.g. Acoustic (magazine) and Acoustic Guitar (magazine). Yes, there may be some original research in the current edit, the term might also be covered in a dictionary, and some might consider this to be a "huge topic," but I don't find these to be sufficient cause for deletion from Wikipedia. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Not a genre, and not a style of music." LOL. It is a type of music. gidonb (talk)
    No it's not. It's a method of presenting and performing music. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the keeps in this discussion seem to be solely based on the fact that one day someone may be able to write an encyclopedic article that matches the title. This article dose not exist so I don't understand how we can discuss what might happen in the future. We are talking about the article here not the title. This is a major problem we should not keep things on maybe someday someone might type arguments. Ridernyc (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a reasonable opinion to have, but none of the deletes offer a solid, policy-based argument. The current edit is basically a stub with a brief description and a couple of references. This is a better foundation to build upon than a blank page. I don't agree with your opinion that this is a major problem. -MrFizyx (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am surprised that the acoustic music article is in the bad shape it is. Acoustic music, while not necessarily a genre, is a widespread form of music. I believe this should be a kept article that should be expanded. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 05:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! I found this very helpful towards my research and i believe others would find it useful also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.74.69 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep True, it's not really a genre per se, but it is a style of performance which is the subject of publications. Could be expanded into something along the lines of our remix article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question is what can be said about music perform acoustically in a manner befitting an encyclopedia article. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a very important topic in music, even if it isn't a genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ems24 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Article needs improvement, but thats not a reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a great article, but a worthy subject.--Rebel1916 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't see how this article brings anything new, it is a list deguised as an article and looks more like an essay. -RobertMel (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't follow. What is being listed? -MrFizyx (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepBooks [35], [36], [37] and periodicals have been writing about it as a meaningful concept since the 1970's, describing some folk music and some rock music played with string instruments lacking direct electric pickups. Clearly appropriate and needed as an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem isnt so much that there is no evidence for acoustic music, but that it is not an appropriate topic for an article. Acoustic music should really include all non-electricied music, including classical and all folk music, not just the modern bits. It seems that what editors really want is an article on acoustic modern folk and rock music, but that doesnt make for a very concise title. Perhaps someone can suggest a suitable alternative title or find a usuable definition in a reliable source.--SabreBD (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. It should be an article about the more general topic. This book could be one resource for such an article. Magazines like acoustic guitar do include discussions of classical and jazz as well as folk and rock. -MrFizyx (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Clear, notable term. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Flyguy649 talk 19:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Cross School[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable. Previously speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A1. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unhelpful nomination, since the consensus appears to be that all high schools are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools at high-school level and above are generally considered notable except in extraordinary circumstances. Nothing in the article suggests this is an unusual case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick search at Google News reveals that this school has received repeated coverage in the Times Educational Supplement for its educational innovations, as well as coverage in other media for various events. I've added a few of these sources. So, not only should this school benefit from the usual presumption in favor of high schools' notability, in this case significant sources are readily found. (I didn't even have to use the item from The Sun about a bricklayer who was fired for distracting the girls with his "hunky" physique.[38].) --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it baby. JBsupreme (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm the one who deleted it; because it simply said, "'''The Holy Cross School'''Bold text''''''.
    Now there is an actual article about a high school, and policy/ convention says that all high schools are notable, with rare exceptions. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - failure to carry out WP:BEFORE research. This school was assessed by Ofsted as Grade 1 who described it as "This is an outstanding school."[39] TerriersFan (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- This is clearly a high school, which by consensus makes it notable. However the article should be Holy Cross School, New Malden, as I expect that there are many other Holy Cross Schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there are. StAnselm (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Proposer does not say why it is not notable. Sounds very notable to me. Dew Kane (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Botha[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put my two cents in again -- I strongly disagree with the position that being a 24 year old -- or whatever age-- and being afflicted with progeria, tragic as that is, indicates notability, per se, as several individuals here contend. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, in principle, with your point. But might say, the worlds oldest X, Y, or Z qualify? It seems that there are people with pages on wikipedia mainly only notable for their age. I'm trying to seek confirmation of the worlds oldest progeria survivor (I found one reference for someone living to 27, and feel that the references for someone living to their 40s are not progeria, but a progeria-like condition like Werner's Syndrome.) Searching for oldest progeria seems to imply that Leon may be one of the oldest currently living (lots of potentially unreliable pages call him the oldest) but I doubt that he's the only one currently 24 or greater. I still stand on my KEEP vote above. Centerone (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I don't think the issue of per se notability is presented. He has received media coverage as an artist and for his status as a progeria survivor; it's the coverage that makes him notable in the Wikipedia sense.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not only the Progeria that makes Leon Botha notable, it's his Art, his Music, his Spirituality. I am a writer working on his Biography as we 'speak', he's been on International TV for his artwork, also for his one in a million case of Progeria. You may doubt that he's the oldest survivor, but this doesn't change the fact that he is. And the world has got the right to know and see that this didn't stop him from being who he chose to be. It's written in an objective way, stating facts of his life and art. This post was written after many mails and letters of inquiry of 'how is it that Leon Botha is not found on Wikipedia?', as so the page was created, although still being written, I insist on it being kept, open your minds and give to the world of the living, to the world of strife and struggle against many a thing the right to be explored. Wickeddish (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC) — Wickeddish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep If you knew a mere portion of what I've been through, or how hard I've worked... or even really gave a fair view at my work in any of the different projects I've been involved with, you would respect that. And you would also see and realize that even if you choose to delete me now, I WILL BE BACK. I don't care about whether or not I am "the oldest person alive with progeria", that has in NO way been certified. And even if it is true, I don't care for that title, nor do I particularly like it. Being in my position and still making it as an artist, IS notable. All of that aside, Wikipedia is simply based on coverage and like I say, if I am deleted now, it will simply come up again in future by the means of someone else about work in future. This is not about my ego, but in contributing to the world. Whether you agree or not, I am and I do. -Leon Botha Solarizel (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC) — Solarizel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Leon - Welcome on board.. I don't think anybody is belittling your journey. That being said, you (& your biographer) may benefit from reading a few pages on wikipedia policies: Biographies of living persons and Autobiographies which are based around and rely on policies of neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. These may give you a better idea of how to better deal with and improve the article. One place where you could definitely add to it is by submitting a photo released under a suitable Free content license. Anyways, I'm glad the article is here (I was going to start it myself if nobody else did); I also started one for Waddy Jones, and have worked on the Die Antwoord article. Centerone (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP How can you possibly sit and decide who stays and goes, you should take notes from all the accomplishments this wonderful person has done and has yet to do,leon is a legend and is hope for others with this disability. Shame on you wikipedia shame on YOU!)-----AnThOnY- — 75.88.133.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep {{.}} how dare you... Longest living with Progeria + Very successful artist = end discussion! Klsone (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC) — Klsone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP I think the delete notice had the intended effect of improving the article and adding more sources, so there is now "evidence of notability." Given the press coverage, the gallery exhibitions, the presence on the internet of his art, and, yes, the "Die Antwoord" "Ninja" video, there should be no question but to keep this entry. Gsshatan (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC) — Gsshatan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

K E E P - Leon Botha is an Artist and explorer of rare sensibility and lucidity! He is part of a dazzling world of immediate direct perception, a world of No Bulshit, and he comes into your world of "notability", predation, empty idealities and Bulshit in terms to bring you some beauty, mystery and lucidity, as well as to teach you some kindness, patience and awakened presence. You, of the invented 'socail order' with its quazi-nazi/darwinian "scales of worth" are soaked in (deep) bulshit because you live in illusions: the illusions that you are 'important' and immortal. Immortal and "important" people are dead and arrogant. You've been shaping the world for mileniae this way: dead, arrogant and predatorial. You have to go now, your time is up: wakey-wakey! It's time for the humble artist-being of lucid awareness and mystery to step in. As you perish we will dream another world, more fluid, with more integrity, consideration of the Other, kindness, creativity and exploration of the unknown mysteries. This is why Leon is here to stay! ~Rosin Fairfield —Preceding unsigned comment added by RFairfield (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC) — RFairfield (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • KEEP He is simply a famous person who should be listed. Jakro64 (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep*** Clearly this discussion in itself proves that Mr. Botha has achieved a level of notoriety that warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Even if his recognition as an artist didn't warrant inclusion, which it does, his becoming an internet, pop icon of sorts certainly would. Does the article need editing? Yes. This can hardly be accomplished if it is removed and life occurs whether or not it is recorded in a style that pleases everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcimhe (talk • contribs) 04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC) — Bcimhe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The subject passes WP:GNG. See this article from The Times (South Africa) and this article from Mail & Guardian. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Toongabbie, New South Wales. Jayjg (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toongabbie Public School[edit]

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

Contested Prod. No notability, no GHits of significance. GregJackP (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. A non-notable primary school. Certainly lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Try looking harder please. Significant section in Pictorial history Blacktown & District (Alan Sharpe), the book Toongabbie Primary School: a 125 year pictorial history appears to be about it, the school wrote about itself in Toongabbie Public School 1886-1986: the first one hundred years and from other such books I have read it will be replete with references, the book The Toongabbie story: a compact history of the settlement looks to have significant stuff written about the school......need I go on ? GHits are are often a useless measure of anything important. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Merge to Toongabbie, New South Wales per Mandsford and leave a redirect in place. There seems sufficient doubt that there is enough for a standalone article - Peripitus (Talk) 02:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the books about Toongabbie Primary self-published? I wouldn't ordinarily think local history books are reliable sources establishing notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hard to tell as I found all this through google books. the 1886-1986 book is published by the school so is only useful for uncontroversial facts (establishment dates, personel etc.) but there appears to be sufficient information. Through the NLA archives I can see news articles primarily about the school from 1895, 1911 and other dates, articles on the schools establishment (1880, 1886), articles about tenders/work on the building from various dates amongst the usual many articles just mentioning the school in passing - see here for a partial list of available news articles - Peripitus (Talk) 00:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peripitus looks to be notable, for a school that is. Worse case scenario we're just going to merge this anyhow. JBsupreme (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Pictorial history Blacktown & District booklet mention above only has five mentions and no detailed coverage of the school. I then used the Gale Cengage search engine. Zero hits for in keywords and only three hits for full text all of which were the school name embedded in long lists of school names for sporting events. Two of those three were for "Toongabbie West Public School" which may be another school. At first I was not comfortable with recommending delete as the school is well over 100 years old and thus we are dealing with FUTON bias. I looked at the Wikipedia article again, realized there's absolutely no hint of notability and there's so little information in that article, such as what country the school is in, that we may well be looking at a hoax article. Even the web site link is junk. WP:ORG#Primary_criteria asks for "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." The only coverage I saw was that in the 1890s the school was overcrowded (50 people in a structure intended for 30) that they built a new building. Usually when something's notable there's a hint. The WP:N coverage I'm looking for may not be on the web but at least I'll find references that such coverage exists and then it's a matter of tracking that down to see if it's significant, independent, etc. I'm not seeing anything. The school web site also offers no hints. I'd say it's an ordinary primary school. --Marc Kupper|talk 11:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Something was bugging me about this as the public school info I saw last night was for NSW while the 125 year history book was published by someone in Victoria. It turns out we have Toongabbie, New South Wales which is now a suburb of Sydney and Toongabbie, Victoria which is a small town (population 563) 177km east of Melbourne whose Toongabbie Primary School opened in 1856 and is still open. Thus we can scratch Toongabbie Primary School: a 125 year pictorial history as being a source or possible WP:N coverage. I have already discussed Pictorial history Blacktown & District which appears to have trivial coverage of the NWS school. The Toongabbie story: a compact history of the settlement is published by Toongabbie Public School, Parents' & Citizens' Association making it a great WP:SELFPUBLISH source for the article but failing entirely as a WP:N source. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that for a subject of such age an offline search is necessary. - that said the article as it stands is not useful and deleting it then someone recreating when there is better substance is an option - Peripitus (Talk) 22:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC) (originally relisted by--Mike Cline (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge to Toongabbie, New South Wales. There's no indication that this is notable outside of Toongabbie, nor any reason to believe that the aforementioned books would have taken up shelf space other than on the "local interest" section of bookstores and libraries in the Sydney area. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @241  ·  04:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Ruler[edit]

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

NN invention. Probably better off to merge it into Ruler. Prod was declined by the author.-- Syrthiss (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A few mentions in advertisements and blogs but nothing that meets WP:N. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable - and as such it shouldn't be merged. andy (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it has sufficient references to show notability. :Majen27 · talk 09:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're advertisements and blogs, not reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by WP:V. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Is a real, existing object, as the photos show, and not a hoax. Since there is likely to be information about it, it is worth writing about in an encyclopedia. Dew Kane (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existence of something does not mean it's notable or encyclopedic. As our guidelines at WP:NOT#OR make clear, "If you or a friend invented the word frindle, a drinking game, or a new type of dance move, it is not notable enough to be an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it". I've looked for references and found nothing. This article shouldn't even be here until those references exist. Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure a catchy product on the market like this is notable. The photo alone is proof of its existence. Dew Kane (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think that existence is the same as notability then you need to read up on Wikipedia policies. If you think that challenging notability is the same as an accusation of hoax then you need to read a dictionary. andy (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @240  ·  04:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Faucet[edit]

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

NN invention. Maybe could be included as a section in Faucet, but is unremarkable in itself. Author declined prod.-- Syrthiss (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A few mentions in advertisements and blogs but nothing that meets WP:N. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. andy (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it has a significant coverage and can be improved. :Majen27 · talk 09:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're advertisements and blogs, not reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by WP:V. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ See, for example, Adrienne Shelly, who passes this criterion by being notable independent of her status as a victim.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_March_9&oldid=1142640587"