The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because http://runecats.foruml.biz/, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Runecats Explorer[edit]

Runecats Explorer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No notability at all. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS per this and this. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 11:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should remain. It is an honest cause to save the earth, as well as an overall useful and easy browser. In time, more an more people will find out about it, there will be more need for the article to remain. It is most definitely notable, and therefore should have an article. Not to mention the article is fully developed, and doesn't seem to be lacking information in any area. I myself am a long-time user of the browser, as well as a member of the community, and from what I've witnessed, Runecats Explorer will sooner or later be ranked up there with Firefox and Chrome. Does that mean those articles were also pending deletion back before they became popular? Even if they were, they most certainly aren't now.
--AMV Ph34r (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox and Chrome are notable. Both have had lots of coverage in the mainstream media. What coverage of RE can you find in the mainstream media? Your opinion that it is better is just that an opinion. Wikipedia requires 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability. No one in the "keep" camp has produced any despite ample opportunity/ noq (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This web browser article has been running for well over a year now, it has references and it appears to be a popular article to contribute. I found out about Runecats Explorer from wikipedia and I am glad I did as I use it as one of my main web browsers now.

I feel this article in relevant and should remain on wikipedia. Wikedit-34 (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you find the browser useful or not, if it is not notable, it doesn't need an article... Captain n00dle ^T/_C 16:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wikedit this browser is notable, it was the default browser at my work place, a lot of my friends and family use it, I don't personly use the browser and just because you don't doesn't necessarily make it not notable.

This browser is certainly more notable than a lot of the browsers on wikipedia, lets take a slightly more well known browser such as "AOL Explorer"- this is still on wikipedia, it has the same amount if not less references, i wouldn't really classify that as notable.

There are loads of trident and gecko based browsers on the list of web browsers section which are less notable than RE.

John2232 (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC) — John2232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Runecats Explorer is notable, it's the first browser to try and reduce the amount of electricity used to save the environment, it was one of the first browser to have full GUI skinning, it is one of the most search aided browsers, It does deserve an article, I and many other edit this article, give information on the newest released, some people give information of the history and much more. This browser isn't a new browser it has been going for years, it has been going before Flock, Chrome etc...

Well I have got to go so that will have to be it for now. Softwareleaksrme (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say the first browser to try and protect our planet isn't notable, the first search engine which did this has a page Blackle.com so why shouldn't the first browser. Think of our planet guys!

From me- Ecofreakoftreeland (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC) — Ecofreakoftreeland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't usually edit Wikipedia, however when I saw this I was shocked. Why do you want to remove this aritcle?! Runecats Explorer is awesome! 92.3.176.225 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC) — 92.3.176.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hey.. I did say I don't usually edit Wikipedia... 92.3.176.225 (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am with the crowd here, Runecats Explorer is notable- Runecats Explorer is rated a unconventional alternative to Google Chrome here: http://www.webtlk.com/2008/09/25/the-best-unconventional-alternative-to-google-chrome/

All of the other browsers rated here are all still on wikipedia, why should this be the only one which isn't, I am all for keeping RE on WIkipedia.

Malcommush (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not considered reliable sources to establish notability. Can ANYONE provide any reliable third party source that about this browser? All I see is a lot of single purpose accounts saying that they like it. noq (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note; the vast majority of keep votes appear to be from socks or SPAs. Two accounts have tried racking up edits outside of Runecats Explorer by adding blank lines to unrelated articles. Hairhorn (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note; HairHorn has undone one members argument

Yes, I rolled back an edit by Softwaregeekland77777 that deleted the above note. Feel free to check the history. Hairhorn (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make things fair here is the quoted message which was deleted:

I do also believe that RE should remain on the best free encyclopedia (wikipedia), Earlier this year at my college we got given a project on an internet browser (my team got given RE), I used wikipedia for a lot of my information, after having to do research on it I actually tried it and it's actually ok, I still prefer Safari however I certainly believe that RE should remain on wikipedia. Softwaregeekland77777 (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee-mcmay (talk • contribs)

Now yes I am a fan of RE, however that doesn't mean that I don't count, I also believe that RE should stay for everyones above reasons and more. and HairHorn don't victimize me because I mainly edit Runecats Explorer, Just because I feel passionate about the browser and like to edit it, so don't victimize me like you are trying with other members.

If this article goes I will be lost :(

I hope this case gets resolved soon

Lee-mcmay (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The level of suspect accounts in this debate is far too high. I have opened up a sockpuppet investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikedit-34. Hairhorn (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result of investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikedit-34/Archive. Summary: Confirmed and users blocked. noq (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dojan5 (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2009 (GMT+1)

Runecats Explorer have been going for several years now, and has been the first web browser with several utilities that no other web browser have even implemented yet. First of all, Runecats Explorer is being developed without much funding at all, now take me seriously or not, that is irrelevant. Runecats have also developed Runecats Explorer over several years now, it is older than for instance, Google Chrome, I have seen it around for years. I haven't seen any web browser with that many search engines built in and easily accessible from one tool, and there's a lot of notable things which makes this web browser unique. Whether or not one person finds this article irrelevant or not but this web browser does deserve a Wikipedia entry, and I'm baffled that Runecats still doesn't have one. Keep this article, Runecats and Runecats Explorer does deserve it.

• Delete - Absolutely no indication of notability. No reviews from major IT news sources despite claims of popularity in UK and USA - and I have never heard of it before today. Article does look to have been subjected to a sustained campaign to make it look as if a lot of people are editing it. noq (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dojan5 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2009 (GMT+1)

I am very sorry for apparently appearing to be a "sock puppet". I'm merely expressing my opinion. Runecats Explorer have been around for years, although I do not have any evidence for that, but I guess I could dig some up. I'm a friend of the developer, and we've been partners for years.. I'm not a "sock puppet". Please do not come with such absurd statements without at least looking up the IP. I vote for a stay, not only as a friend of the developer, but the fact that this web browser is unique enough to have a Wikipedia article.

As a friend of the developer, have you read WP:COI? And can you show some reliable sources for notability. I have looked but can't find any. noq (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets?[edit]

Everyone except from me, Hairhorn and Captain n00dle seem to be sock puppets of one person (no or almost no contributions outside the article, complete noobs in en-wiki). SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 17:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dojan5 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2009 (GMT+1) I've had this account on Wikipedia since a few years back. Everyone with an account probably doesn't add/edit/contribute to pages, you think? The reason for my activity in THIS article is because this is something I have knowledge about, claiming people to be sock puppets due to them not finding interest in editing other articles is in my personal opinion outright dimwitted. Investigate these people as you feel, but please do investigate BEFORE claiming something you do not have proof of.

Comparing RuneCats Explorer to FireFox[edit]

LucarFox 10:31, 27 October 2009 (GMT-5) I was using RE and Comparing it to FF In windows Vista (*yuk*)... RE was using about 50,000 kb less ram than FF. FF was using 5% of my CPU when RE was using 3%. Also RE came with all the plugins I needed to watch youtube videos and play a few java games i found on the google chrome testing thing :P. I tested this with my 2.4 ghz duel core,4gegs of ram, and an nvidia 9600. RE is notably.. well... little bit BETTER than FF! Something to consider if u have really bad ram ;).

another "user" appearing out of nowhere to praise the browser - where are the 3rd party references to back this up? A new user appearing having made no other edits claims it is notable without giving a reference to prove notability. Just because you claim to like it does not make it notable. noq (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...[edit]

Well the only argument for not having this Wikipedia article delete is not enough 3rd party sources, so I decided to look at lots of other web browsers:
Web_visions < that really should be deleted.
Enigma
GreenBrowser
MSN_Explorer
IRider
Teega
TheWorld_Browser
Smart_Bro
WebbIE
Madfox
UltraBrowser

Ok there are just a few examples of some browsers. These are all on wikipedia and have smaller articles than Runecats Explorer and have no references on the article. Please explain why you are not picking on these browsers but are picking on RE which has a bigger article. Softwareleaksrme (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since anyone can make a wikipedia page, the quality or existence of other pages isn't really considered a good argument against deletion. See wp:otherstuffexists. Having a "bigger article" also wildly irrelevant to whether it should stay or not. If you want to nominate any more of these pages for deletion, as you did with Web visions, be prepared to come up with a reason. Hairhorn (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You looked hard at the Teega article - it is nominated for deletion for much the same reasons as this one. But as Hairhorn already indicated whether or not another article exists that does not meet the notability guidelines is irrelevant. This article has to show that it meets them. So show me the third party articles in reliable sources that discuss this "popular" browser. And that means more than a mention of the name or a user comment - I can find those.noq (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't matter if Firefox is like Runecats, it doesn't matter if it's going to be really popular soon, and it doesn't matter if it saves the Earth, though that's nice. The bottom line is, the subject of the article doesn't meet the corresponding notability guidelines. If the subject of an article doesn't have notability, it can't have an article because no research can be done on it. The article looks really boasting, for lack of a better term, and promotional. These are problems that could potentially be solved with a rewrite. However, a rewrite can't even occur if the subject is not notable enough to have an article in the first place. talkingbirds 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable IE reskin with very sketchy details and not much of a userbase to speak of. Also makes questionable claims that it uses less energy than other browsers...every browser uses the same amount of energy, period. Most of this stuff about how 'skinning with a black color saves energy on a monitor' I feel is WP:BOLLOCKS and is pretty much lost in the course of average browsing. Nate • (chatter) 00:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolysis system[edit]

Electrolysis system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article/neologism is an attempt to legitimize water-fueled car scams. The subject matter the article deals with already presented on electrolysis of water and oxyhydrogen. OMCV (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The concerns raised above are true ones. Any relevant, properly sourced info should be merged with electrolysis of water. Airplaneman ^talk 02:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV fork of Electrolysis of water. No usable content or history; the FTC link is at Fuel Freedom International, and could probably be added to Water-fuelled car. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with the nominator. Have read the article and found its tone unencyclopedic and the content not worthy of merging into anything. The title is not neologism, but refers to a specific design, which is much too specific for WP though, thus redirect is hardly suitable too. Materialscientist (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A google search for "Electrolysis system" in quotes yields >150,000 pages, and the top hits all seem to be legitimate articles or commercial websites about various specific applied systems. The term is being used, it certainly fits notability among other criteria. If scams or fringe theories call themselves "electrolysis systems" or refer to these, that doesn't invalidate the use of the term for the legitimate systems that do exist and are being called "electrolysis systems". Any concern about tone, style, or scams/fringe theories can be dealt with by editing this article.Fredwerner (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if we already cover this subject under a slightly different title then that is just an argument for a redirect. Besides, you can't just count Google hits, you have to look at whether they are relevant. There are hits for this but many are not relevant at all. I see a lot of "electrolysis system"s for removing hair, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielRigal (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 October 2009

I agree completely with Daniel.--OMCV (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial Merge. I am going to be generous say "merge" because it looks less like a cynical POV fork as one of those things that happens when an inexperienced editor writes a good faith article on an existing subject without realising that it is already covered. There might be a few things here that are worth merging to other articles, if there is RS to support them. I can't see any support for scams here although the tone is poor. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the page "But these systems have been tied with scams as well. The reason for the failure of the scams are due to the fact that usually they don't produce enough oxyhydrogen. Even though many universities and private parties have done tests and have argued for years on the results, no official government test data has been released." Basically it says some of these systems are scams are but not all of them so you the consumer should be discerning. Then it goes directly to suggesting that the authorities have never debunked the said scams. Regardless its bad writing even by my standards and weird on the POV but you are probably right about the good faith. Still the content should be removed or moved and the page deleted or redirected.--OMCV (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the nominator's assessment of the article. I do not see any information that is worth merging into the existing articles that better cover this topic. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — The Earwig @ 02:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Homes Match[edit]

New Homes Match (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Advert-like article about a website that does not establish notability; refs are all primary. Speedy tag removed by an anon ip, but speedy deletable as either spam or a non-notable website. I42 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete and Close. The speedy tag should be readded in this case as well as the closing of this case. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)User is a recreation of banned user, so this !vote is invalid --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No secondary sources found. All Ghits are primary, press releases, advertisements, or social networking sites. Notability not established. Snottywong (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: New Homes Match's goal is to educate people by eliminating the transparency between buyers and sellers so they can discover the buyers true purchasing power. "New Homes Match creates a place for anyone to come to find exactly what they are looking for and can match anyone up with the perfect builder for their specific desires." In cases as blatant as this, notability issues are a distractiom. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. notability derives from sources not assertions so no sources = non-notable Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of indebtedness[edit]

Evidence of indebtedness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Rather than being a general, top-level article about its purported topic, evidence of indebtedness, this article is a personal analysis of a particular problem related to evidence of indebtedness in the United States. WP:No original research. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Needs a comprehensive rewrite. The article itself is currently written terribly, but I think the topic is notable and warrants an article. We just need to find someone else to write the article. Snottywong (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have it backwards. There are a billion articles that would be worthy of articles. They shouldn't be created until someone has a valid one to write, at least a workable stub. The text that's here needs to be deleted, and that would leave an empty article. There is no merit to keeping an article before someone has valid content to provide for it. Of course, you or someone else are welcome to provide such content, but this nomination is based on the current circumstances. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see "bad editing" as a reason for deletion in WP:DEL#REASON. As a matter of fact, WP policy specifically states that a poorly edited article should be fixed by better editing, not deletion. See WP:ATD#Editing, WP:IMPERFECT, and the second bullet-point under WP:BEFORE. Snottywong (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My reason for nominating this article has nothing to do with bad editing, the article being a stub, or its imperfection. It's about the article not being about what the article claims, by its title, to be about, although it does relate to it. If there weren't already an article with the title Bird and someone created one, but the text focused on problems faced by pet bird owners, it wouldn't be an editing problem, and it wouldn't be a stub. It would be an article that shouldn't be left indefinitely until someone happened to come along and replace the text with a real article about birds. It would be an article that ought to be deleted until someone decided to write a genuine article about birds. Here's the deal: the point of having an article is to allow people to be able to refer to it. If we have articles sitting around for readers to find, only to disappoint them when it turns out they aren't about what the title claims, it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia, even allowing for imperfection, works in progress, etc. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - The article does not contain any references whatsoever and the writing is obscure and hard to understand. The subject is of notable standards, I would agree, but it is not practical to keep it in its current state which is likely to remain unedited or unimproved. It makes more sense to delete this one and if someone still sees the importance of the subject than it can be recreated more appropriately. - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This does want a rewrite. It doesn't explain how "evidence of indebtedness" relates to labor law, or explain the significance of the term among promissory notes and other credit instruments. But the subject is worthwhile, and the text here not completely valueless. If I get a chance, I may have a go at this later. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article has no references CynofGavuf 08:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This article needs work, but the topic is important. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the topic being important was sufficient for keeping an article, we wouldn't have WP:CSD A3, and instead of WP:Articles for creation we would just recommend that people create empty articles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Attack page -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Getzel[edit]

Jeffrey Getzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is a biography of an American accountant. The article provides no assertion of notability and reads like a resume. I was unable to find reliable sources indicating the subject's notability. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly speedy. Not notable, and nothing indicates importance (he is a partner in a small firm, holds some professional certificates, and was pulled over by a police officer once? Seriously...) Singularity42 (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think this would issue a speedy deletion but the article still has major flaws. 74.227.231.144 (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete consider speedy. no assertion of notability in the article and con't find anything to establish notability. The article is also spammy. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources of any information that would imply notability. The story of getting arrested in the parking lot of Friendly's is priceless though. Almost worth keeping the article. Snottywong (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Indeed. Although the article should be deleted, I'm curious as to what "cause" the cop found to arrest Mr. Getzel and his son. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. This could have been speedied for notability, but personally I see that police story as an attack. See also Michael Getzel. This is very odd. andy (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I managed to read the Michael Getzel article before an admin deleted it, and I concur that a deletion as a WP:ATP under G10 was absolutely proper. But with this article, I'm not so sure of whether it meets any of the WP:CSD. Unlike the other article, I don't think this one is an attack page. Certain elements of it (all the stuff about NAMBLA, implying that Mr. Getzel is a pedophile; the Friendly's parking lot arrest story) could possibly be construed that way, but I think a G10 speedy would be declined, and rightly so. As for A7, while it is true that there is no assertion of notability (as I mentioned above), I took a path of caution, as new users (like User:Mgetzel in this case) might not know that notability has to be asserted. That was before I saw the Michael Getzel attack page, of course; at this point I would be open to speedy deletion of this page. Anyone here may feel free to tag it thus if he or she so desires. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done so. It's not entirely an attack but enough of one, given the other rubbish the author has created, to make it highly questionable. And in the case of BLPs that should be enough. andy (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dlasthr. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymon Youmaran[edit]

Raymon Youmaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable, run-of-the-mill criminal. Two of the links don't work, BTW. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added a reference and fixed another. In general, if a link is broken, you should try to find a copy at http://www.archive.org/ before giving up. I was able to find a copy of the ninemsn story there. I removed the broken link to http://aussie_news_views.typepad.com/aussie_news_views/2006/06/ramon_youmaran_.html which would not have been a reliable source in any event, unless it was a verbatim reproduction of material from a reliable source. This is not someone who was only in the news for a single event, but for several. Having been on a "most wanted" list distinguishes this person from a run-of-the-mill criminal. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators. WWGB (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Dlasthr. There is some coverage about this subject, but not widespread. Location (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dlasthr. He's not individually notable as the press coverage was minimal, much of it newswires, and was only a brief burst. I would have said delete, but the material here can update the section about him in the gang article. Fences&Windows 03:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dlasthr (which itself needs fixing). Orderinchaos 21:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G12, copyvio) by Ricky81682. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MaC Renegade[edit]

MaC Renegade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable 16-year-old performer, no reliable sources can be found via Google, nothing in Gnews, no reliable sources in the article, in fact the only link is to his Myspace page (except for a bogus link to Lupe Fiasco's imdb page which was falsely labeled as an imbd page for MaC Renegade, which I have now removed). This page has been speedy deleted twice, it's time to put this to bed. The user keeps creating autobiography pages for himself and won't stop. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - The article has been recreated a number of times so should be salted. Aside from everything that WTWAG has already said, I believe there's little doubt that the article is a hoax as well, considering many of the outrageous claims. -- Atama頭 23:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - seems to just keep increasing the (outrageous) claims of notability in each subsequent article without citing a single source. Enough already. Singularity42 (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - No sources except social networking sites. Not notable. Snottywong (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt – He's got a Myspace page, youtube video, and other self-published sources, so I don't think it's a hoax. I looked but couldn't find any evidence of notability, not even the usual event listings that even non-notable musicians normally have. Maybe he's been mentioned in some local publications with no online presence. Rees11 (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - By "hoax" I don't mean that I believe that he doesn't exist. What I mean is that claims such as "Prominent hip hop mogul DJ Jazzy Jeff describes him as 'The next Fresh Prince'" or being associated with The Roots and Gym Class Heroes approach WP:HOAX territory. -- Atama頭 23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Aw, bless! The article is written almost entirely in the first person by the subject himself, and is full of red links to related articles I guess he's planning to create if this one were to survive. I kind of hope he does achieve Notability some day. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt Not notable. Repeated recreation of deleted material. Basket of Puppies 02:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fire World[edit]

Fire World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about an unpublished book, giving no information but the title. Earlier versions said the author "predicts it will be published in 2011"; the article does not now give any date. Per WP:Notability (books)#Not yet published books, "Articles about books that are not yet published are strongly discouraged." This is far too soon for an article. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:Notability (books)#Not yet published books, unless Wikipedia has a specific guideline for "Not yet started books".Snottywong (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not established, no references and no hits from reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Karljoos (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable CynofGavuf 10:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bose stereo speakers[edit]

Bose stereo speakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an AfD for multiple articles, all having to do with specific product lines offered by the Bose Corporation. None of these articles are notable enough to warrant a separate article, and therefore they should be merged into their parent article per Wikipedia policy. There are thousands of companies worldwide that create similar products, and there is no reason that Bose's specific products are more notable than any other company's nearly identical offerings. Additionally, these pages all read like an advertisement. Many of the pages are formatted in a similar way, including show/hide drop-downs that reveal "specifications" about each particular product, which often include the price of the product and its warranty details. Additionally, most of these pages include very long lists of past model numbers (with extremely brief or nonexistent descriptions) which are meaningless to anyone except Bose employees and extremely enthusiastic Bose fans. It's my opinion that most (if not all) of these pages were either created or purposely modified by the same person (or group of people) for the sole purpose of creating a Bose advertisement on WIkipedia. The encyclopedic content of each of these articles usually boils down to a sentence or two. These few sentences could easily be merged (per WP:PRODUCT) into the Bose Corporation article, or even into the article for that particular product type (for instance, Loudspeaker, Headphones, Home Cinema, etc). I would like to add that I personally do not have any ill will for Bose or its products (I actually own several Bose products), I just sincerely believe that these articles do not belong on Wikipedia. Snottywong (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of bundled articles nominated for deletion

Bose stereo speakers

Bose headphones

Previous Bose headphones

Bose computer speakers

Bose Lifestyle Home Entertainment Systems

Bose 3-2-1 Home Entertainment Systems

Bose wave systems

Bose digital music systems

• Keep. This company's technology is notable, as evidenced by the references included and by additional references which could be added after a Google News and Google Scholar search. If there is non-encyclopedic information in the article, it can be removed, but the presence of non-encyclopedic information is not in itself reason to delete an article. An article about a company's products need not be an advertisement, particularly when many of the products described in the article are no longer manufactured. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at the references or just count how many references were on the page? 95% of the references on these pages are either primary references (from Bose's website), copies of press releases on non-Bose sites, or user product reviews from sites like cnet.com. These are not reliable, independent, verifiable sources. These articles have received heavy criticism in the past for reading like advertisements, and these "references" were likely added to add a superficial appearance of legitimacy. Don't be tricked. Snottywong (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article on "Bose stereo speakers" is like having an article on "Kenmore microwave ovens" or "Craftsman doorknobs". It's an article on one specific (and rather uninteresting) example of an extremely ubiquitous item. If you allow this article to remain, then you invite similar articles such as "JBL stereo speakers", "EAW stereo speakers", "Yamaha stereo speakers", "Sony stereo speakers", "Pyle stereo speakers", ad infinitum. Also, can you really say that you agree that there should be a "Bose headphones" article and a completely separate "Previous Bose headphones" article? In that case, let's add a few more articles to Wikipedia: "Sennheiser headphones", "Previous Sennheiser headphones", "Sony headphones", "Previous Sony headphones", "AKG headphones", "Previous AKG headphones", etc. And, if we allow "Bose Lifestyle Home Entertainment Systems", well then I'm going to Best Buy and I'm going to write an article on every different model of home entertainment system that they carry. Now do you see why these articles are inappropriate? Snottywong (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no one is disputing whether the Bose Corporation itself is notable. We're disputing whether or not these individual product lines within the Bose corporation are notable enough to deserve their own articles. Snottywong (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The reference I noticed the most was a scholarly article by an Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist who happened to be the founder of the Bose company. For me, the question is whether a particular manufacturer did something particularly innovative, rather than something that was obvious to anyone working in the field. I do not pretend to know whether Sennheiser, Sony or AKG headphones or speakers qualify in that regard, but if they do, they are notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain, if you can find multiple reliable, independent, verifiable sources that prove these particular Bose products were significantly more innovative than anything else out there on the market, then I will agree with you that these articles should stay. I can tell you right now that you won't find these articles. They're inexpensive consumer headphones that you can get at Best Buy or Circuit City. Now, there is a lot of hype out there about some of these products (like the wave radio), but that is primarily a result of Bose's significant PR efforts (which is why every "source" you find is either from a Bose website, a regurgitated Bose ad or press release, or a user product review). Snottywong (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These articles, all of them, are about product lines that need no more mention than an insertion into the Bose Corporation article a couple of lines saying this product won this award, and that product won that award. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - none of these are notable by themselves. Can someone please volunteer to merge them into one article? Bearian (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say that would be the existing Bose Corporation article as opposed to any notional Bose Corporation products article. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am available to merge the notable content of these articles into the Bose Corporation article, should that be the decision of the admin reviewing this case. Snottywong (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I have done a lot of recent editing to these pages. I have use the Apple pages as my guideline and I have very slowly tried to bring them to that caliber, but real life does get in the way
  

currently the basis for inclusion in wikipedia is simple If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. So lets see the sources that are currently listed:
Here are some reviews of just some of the products talked about (I didint have time to flesh all of them out...)

I hope that I made my case clear. These subjects are notable and have a right to be included. The articles just need some wikiediting to get them upto the standard that the iPod, Xbox 360, Gdium, DBox2, PlayStation 3, CherryPal, Pioneer BDR-101A, GP2X Wiz, Daewoo Espero, iLiad, Toyota Noah, Neo 1973, Samsung I7500, Buffalo AirStation, Skytone_Alpha-400, Killer NIC and Lexus RX Hybrid has set on Wikipedia :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix, I whole-heartedly disagree with your reasoning. I understand you are the primary contributor to this article and that you have put a lot of work into these articles. That, however, doesn't make them notable. I think that you fundamentally misunderstand what a source is. Sourced articles "should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Nothing against the sources you've mentioned, but I don't think Professional Pilot Magazine has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. An article in Fortune magazine entitled "26 must-have gadgets" is not a source. It's an advertisement in a magazine posing as an article (similar to the WP pages we're discussing here). And, I'll leave it to you to tell me why Along Came Mary: A Bad Girl Creek Novel by Jo-Ann Mapson is a source for your Bose articles.

None of the links you've provided above are a source. Product reviews prove that the product exists, but that's all they do. They're just advertisements. The one source that comes the closest to being a real source is the Active Sound and Vibration Control by Osman Tokhi and Sandor Veres. However, when you go to page 13, you see that Bose is mentioned in a single sentence, letting us know that Bose offers active headphones for sale. The only thing that source tells us is that Bose sells headphones. It does not prove that Bose's headphones in particular are notable enough to deserve their own WP article. Do Bose headphones deserve a mention on the Bose Corporation article? Absolutely. Their own article? No.

You compare your articles to a long list of articles on Apple products. What you fail to realize is that Apple has a long list of products that are unique and one-of-a-kind. iPod, iPhone, iMac all had no precedent, and were all technological revolutions. This makes them notable. Run-of-the-mill computer speakers or home theater stereo systems are ubiquitous, and therefore are not even close to notable. Also, take a look at the references list on the iPod article. There are almost 100 references, including patents and articles from reliable, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They are not simply a long list of product reviews on cnet. Snottywong (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a list of two or three real references from truly independent, reliable, fact-checked, accurate sources of which the primary topic is "Bose computer speakers" or "Bose 3-2-1 Home Entertainment Systems" (or something similar). Ensure that these articles are not just regurgitated Bose PR advertisements in an obscure magazine. Ensure that these articles from reliable sources clearly establish why these products are unique, revolutionary, inspirational, or otherwise notable or significantly different from the vast sea of other companies' computer speaker and home entertainment system offerings. Produce these sources and I will cede my argument. I assert that no such articles exist. The burden of proof is yours. Snottywong (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have little time to comment so I will be brief this time. But is your argument that C|Net is NOT a " reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? If you check them I believe that you will see that it is exactly that! Oh I do understand collapsing some of my convo into a hidden box.... But not everything! Please allow my hours of work to be read by others, thanks! -- Phoenix (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that product reviews on cnet.com establish notability? If that's the case, then I will begin the process of creating a WP article on every product that has a review on cnet. I'm still waiting to see two or three real references that establish the notability of each individual product group that you've created an article for. The incredibly long and borderline disruptive list of irrelevant links you've copied and pasted above don't include any real sources that establish notability, as far as I can tell. Most of the above links establish the fact that the products exist, nothing more. You haven't provided any evidence that these products need more than a brief mention within the Bose Corporation article, with a brief description of what they are and any awards they may have won. Snottywong (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix79 says "Currently on wikipedia there are these articles related to Apple Products..." but this is absolutely not an argument for keeping any of the Bose product articles, per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bose wave systems at least

As far as the "wave" products go, these are highly notable as one of Bose's flagship products with some "magic" technology. They are widely advertised, high-priced and rarely discussed, leading to a situation where WP readers are in need of encyclopedic coverage of them that objectively and WP:NPOV explains just what it is they're buying.

If there really is no WP:RS coverage of these products, then of course delete them, according to policy. However I find that unbelievable (although it's not my field of knowledge, so I don't know of them myself). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, if you don't know whether there is no WP:RS coverage of these products, then it is your responsibility to go find out before voting whether to keep or delete these articles. Snottywong (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately we work by consensus, not by voting. Nor do I appreciate your implication that it's suddenly my responsibility to fix any article you've taken a dislike to. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said or implied that it's your responsibility to fix any article that I personally dislike. This AfD was started because of a question of whether or not these articles are notable enough to deserve their own articles. There are clear standards on the definition of the word notable. I simply said that anyone who is putting forth an opinion on an AfD should, first of all, fully understand Wikipedia's definition of notability, and second of all, should do the research to ascertain for themselves whether or not the articles are notable according to that definition. Your opinion above is essentially a "gut reaction" as to whether or not the subject is notable, and you even admit that you don't know if there are any reliable sources. No one is disputing that the Bose Corporation is notable. What we're arguing about here is whether not specific product lines within the Bose Corporation are actually notable enough to deserve their own articles. No one is forcing you to vote on AfD's, but if you choose to vote, I'm just asking that you do the work required to come to an informed opinion. Thanks. Snottywong (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the Wave line is rarely discussed seems to me to be an argument against notability. If the line is rarely discussed, then why bother having an article devoted to it? Binksternet (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If this AfD concludes that the product pages are to be deleted or merged, then Template:Bose will no longer serve any purpose. In that case, I will propose it for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wanted to add the template to this AfD, but templates are deleted using a different process (the AfD template doesn't work in a template namespace). If the admin reviewing this case decides to delete or merge these pages, then we should be able to either speedily delete the template (for lack of potential usage) or start a TfD if someone opposes the speedy delete. Snottywong (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the primary Bose Corporation article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please be advised that this AFD was recently linked by the nominator at the Wikipedia Review, expressing their concern that this AFD "is being somewhat railroaded by inexperienced WP editors" inviting "the attention of a few experienced editors". For your information. –xeno^talk 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I also clearly stated that I was not looking for people who only share my opinion, nor did I even state my opinion or any of the details of what the AfD is about. There is no wrongdoing here per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices and Wikipedia:Publicising_discussions. I feel this discussion could be moved along if a few experienced Wikipedians (which I don't necessarily consider myself one of) would weigh in with logical arguments (for either side of the argument) instead of gut reactions. Snottywong (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is intended to gather a random-ish segment of Wikipedian opinions, and inviting a biased audience like those who frequent the Review could negatively affect this process. To offset this, I made a note for the reviewing admin as well as any others who come to this discussion. –xeno^talk 18:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, I apologize. I guess I thought that my message was pretty neutral, and I still don't see how the audience of the Review is biased, but you'd probably know better than I. Sorry about that, this is the first AfD that I've nominated, so I've learned my lesson. Hopefully I didn't corrupt the whole thing. If it means anything, all of the comments above Xeno's comment were posted before this incident. Snottywong (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Xeno: I'm not seeing WR reading users as any less random than any other pseudo-random self selected collection of users. So I don't see a big deal here. However I would point out that mentioning something on WR often has effects far different than one could expect or predict. So watch out for that. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For this subject, you're probably right - I would still generally advise against it. And agree about the Law of unintended consequences. –xeno^talk 18:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also far from happy about Snottywong's ATTACK and the comment, "is being somewhat railroaded by inexperienced WP editors." Particularly as it's from someone who still sees AfD as a vote. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, Andy. You're arguing semantics now. I obviously don't believe AfD is a vote. My comment to you was that if you are going to "vote" (or "express an opinion" if that makes you happier) on an AfD, a minimum amount of effort should be directed towards research, in order to produce an informed opinion. Yes, I used the word "vote" in my comment, but I'm not under the delusion that an admin is going to disregard everyone's comments and simply numerically tally up the Keeps and the Deletes and see who wins. Snottywong (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about semantics, or your comment to me, it's about you going to an external website and denigrating other WP editors, myself included. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Bose technology is sufficiently different than other more generic brands (there are a few other brands for which this is true) that the topic is worthy of coverage. Remove all the product spec sheet data, the warranty info, the pricing, the puffery, and if there's anything left, merge what remains either to a single article, or if not enough remains, to Bose Corporation and leave redirects. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, Bose technology is not significantly different from other audio technology companies. Imagine what it is that you would put into an article entitled Bose technology... What kinds of things would you put in there? Many companies have earned patents—many companies have one or two novel products. Whatever your answer, it is no reason to have individual Bose product articles. Instead of having a company-wide "technology" that is sprinkled like magic pixie dust on every product, Bose has a whopping marketing department which makes the product seem special and unique.

One thing to note about supposed Bose technology is that long ago they decided to remove standard specifications from their home consumer product literature and manuals. Buy a Bose loudspeaker system for the home and you will not be able to read the accompanying literature to find out its frequency range, its audio power handling ability or its acoustic output power. It is only when you go to www.pro.bose.com that you get product specification sheets like this that show projected performance of the kind required by audio professionals. Go to Google or your favorite search engine and start typing in "no highs no lows" and you'll see revealed in front of your eyes the old audiophile adage used when criticizing Bose. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the creation of a Bose Marketing Strategies article... :P Snottywong (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nine articles may be too much, but Bose is important enough to have more than one article. Keep at least Bose headphones and Bose stereo speakers. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all for several reasons as outlined by the above !voters but first of all because there's no way this AfD is ever going to lead to any other result than keep or merge. Even if these should fail WP:N they are likely search terms which should be kept as redirects as per the above !votes. Hence, there's no need for this AfD as you don't need AfD to start a merge discussion. Also, canvassing and group-nominating articles that aren't obvious candidates for deletion is not the way to get the outcome you were hoping for. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bye bye AGF. Please, we're not stupid around here. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry about the canvassing mistake. That was ignorance on my part. I'm not sure what you mean by "Bye Bye AGF", as I think I've made my opinion abundantly clear here, and I assure you I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. But anyway, you can't seriously agree that we need a "Bose headphones" article and a "Previous Bose headphones" article. I think if this AfD resulted in an outcome of "Merge", with a specific instruction that these articles are to be merged into the Bose Corporation article, or into a single Bose Products article, it would serve as an edict with which the major contributors to these articles could not argue, and I think that would be a small success for Wikipedia. Without the AfD, a merge discussion would have almost certainly gone to mediation. You might be right that I should have tried that first, but... here we are. Thanks for the comments. Snottywong (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we don't need a Bose headphones article and a Previous Bose headphones article. However, considering the way you're trying to get these deleted in one go, how do expect any decision to be made that considers these as individual articles? The very best you can hope for here is a "no consensus" unless you're lucky and the closer looks at these as individual articles - which you haven't done with this nom. I'm sympathetic to your concerns about COI and spam but we don't delete articles because the editor(s) have a conflict of interest. We judge the articles individually on their own merits. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And further, the articles can be edited to remove problematic content now, while the AfD is still underway. If one removes all the spec sheet data and marketing stuff and there isn't much left, all the more compelling reason to merge. But do the actual merge after the AfD closes, please (...if anyone's thinking of it now). We have had enough problems with that in the past. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it have been better to nominate each article separately? The AfD guidelines seemed to suggest that if you have a bunch of articles that are similar and all suffer from the same issue, that it would be less taxing on the AfD queue to list them bundled. Some of these articles are completely devoid of encyclopedic content (in my opinon), while others have small amounts of valuable information. I could try to delete the non-encyclopedic content from each article, but in some cases that would result in blanking the article or reducing it to a few lines, or at the very least deleting large sections. Would that not be seen as inflammatory or disruptive? I need to be careful now as I have apparently already committed one faux pas. Snottywong (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bold merges and redirects are consistent with the WP:BRD cycle of editing. –xeno^talk 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all, and, if required, unbundle and relist. There are sufficient differences for these not to meet WP:Bundle. I think, for example, that Bose wave systems are sufficiently innovative, and covered by reliable sources to be kept. Plenty of independent reviews here for example. Having said all this, the number of articles seem excessive covering the subjects in undue depth. WP:BEFORE requires us to look for alternatives to deletion and a combined page, with much of the detail removed, entitled Bose home audio products, or similar, should be considered. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Bose stereo speakers article, since the 901 was an innovative design which was widely covered in numerous audiophile and electronics magazines,and had a bad review in Consumer Reports in 1970 that led to a widely covered libel lawsuit back in the late 1970's which reached the U.S. Supreme Court [2], [3]. (actual library research might be needed to supplement what is indexed online only as snippets), and its successors can be covered in the same article. No opinion on headphones or the other articles. Edison (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is notable information about certain products. I disagree that there is enough notable information for an entire article. Something like the couple of sentences that you just posted above could easily be added to the Bose Corporation article (or a "Notable Bose Products" type of article), and it would be a fairly complete treatment of the subject. Snottywong (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all Very major product groups, all of them having multiple reviews in the appropriate sources. (The headphones do in particular). These are already combined pages--what we try to avoid is articles on each individual; product model. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these annotated merchandise catalog descriptions. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an electronics mart. Someone who is really dedicated could try to cull the very most pertinent socially or culturally relevant aspects of these articles and merge them into the Bose Corporation article, where they belong. It is ridiculous to think that tolerance of these crufty marketing pieces will not lead to all sorts of copy-cat advertorials for Herr's pretzel snacks, Herr's tortilla chip snacks, Herr's cheese puff snacks, etc. Please, isn't Herr's Snacks quite enough? Use some sense. Wikipedia: encyclopedia, not direct mail brochure. -- Lowell don't get lunch we'll order pizza (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)— Lowell don't get lunch we'll order pizza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

SPA notice placed by a supposedly "RETIRED" editor, then replaced by another supposedly "RETIRED" editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orderly Conductor (talk • contribs)

And who are you a sockpuppet of? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let's delete Herr's cheese puff snacks immediately.

Now what do you think about the Bose articles, the one's we're actually discussing? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he clearly thought the articles were "annotated merchandise catalog descriptions". How long have you been an employee of Bose, Andy? Did this discussion bring you out of retirement, or was it something else? -- Orderly Conductor (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your insinuation that I have some bias as a result of working for Bose (I haven't, BTW), and especially not posting personal information to an edit summary. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the main article about the Bose Corporation company. The individual product lines or classes are marginally notable, at best, and the readers are telling us they are about 10 to 14 times more likely to read the article about Bose Corporation than any of these lesser articles about the product lines. Aren't we here to serve the readers? I am especially concerned about dubious "references" such as this one pointing to a .org site with Alexa domain rank in the 11,000,000's. If the writer(s) of these so-called encyclopedia articles have to scrape that low in the barrel to come up with references that assert notability, perhaps we need to honestly question the notability. -- Orderly Conductor (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC) — Orderly Conductor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

SPA notice placed by a supposedly "RETIRED" editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orderly Conductor (talk • contribs)

• MergeAfter reading the opinions stated above, the original nominator (me) would like to put forth a vote for merging (as opposed to outright deletion). There is a small amount of useful information in these articles, and I believe that a discussion should be started about the best way to merge these articles. I hope that the AfD admin's decision is to merge, and if so, I look forward to working with the major contributors of these articles to reach a consensus on how to merge these articles. Thanks. Snottywong (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all for now, per above comments about innovative speaker design and Bose Wave Radios. However, definitely no prejudice against independent renoms of anything not meeting WP:N later. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG among others. These all seem to be notable products, and it would be a mess of a page if we tried to shoehorn it into All Bose Products or some such. Bfigura ^(talk) 19:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG, SarekOfVulcan and above all the sheer amount of sources presented. --Cyclopia^talk 02:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity of sources alone (regardless of relevance to the topic, or quality of the source) is not a criteria for notability. Especially when some of the sources are as irrelevant as Along Came Mary: A Bad Girl Creek Novel by Jo-Ann Mapson. (Yes, I'm not joking. That is one of the sources listed in Phoenix's list above. Go and look for yourself. While you're at it, take a look at the rest of the sources. None of them are reliable, independent sources that establish notability. You will, however, actually have to click on Phoenix's links and read the content they refer to in order to come to this conclusion.) SnottyWong talk 02:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<Sigh> snotty, you don't think that Books are notable? So your argument is Tech Magazines and News articles are notable... Ok thats simple. (God I love google!)

• Washington post - Bose QuietComfort 3 headphones review
• Washington post - The Bose QuietComfort 15 Headphones Are For the Non-Frugal Traveller
• Popular Science - Now Hear This
• Popular Science - Sound All around
• Popular Science - They're still inventing Hi-Fi Loudspeakers
• MSN - Tabletop Radios: Tune In, Turn On, Wake Up
• PC Magazine - Bose QuietComfort 15
• PC Magazine - Bose In-Ear Headphones
• PC Magazine - Bose QuietComfort 3
• PC Magazine - Bose QuietComfort 2
• PC Magazine - Bose Companion 3
• PC Magazine - Bose Lifestyle System 38
• PC Magazine - Bose Computer MusicMonitor
• PC Magazine - Bose SoundDock Portable
• PC Magazine - Bose Wave Music System
• PC Magazine - Bose SoundDock Digital Music System
• PC Magazine - The Best Noise-Canceling Headphones
• PC Magazine - Sweet iPod Speakers
• PC Magazine - Bose SoundDock 10 Digital Music System
• Pitchfork - Resonant Frequency #32
• USA Today - Holiday gift guide: Great gear to get your guys
• Wired 13.07 Wired Test
• Popular Mechanics - Bose DVD-Based Lifestyle 28 And 35 Entertainment Systems Give You Serious Sound
• Popular Mechanics - Bose In-Ear Headphones: Gadget of the Week
• Popular Mechanics - Tech Test: Bose QuietComfort 15 Acoustic Noise Cancelling Headphones
• Popular Mechanics - Summertime Santa: Our High-Tech Gift to Tulane's Students
• Popular Mechanics - Multispeaker Vs. Virtual Surround Sound
• Popular Mechanics - Serpentine Surge Protectors, Camera Effects, Cell Phone 'Net Tests and More
• Popular Mechanics - DVD Home Theater In A Box
• Popular Mechanics - Killer Sound For Your PC
• Popular Mechanics - High-Tech Airline Appliances Make Flying Fun

I could go on but frankly I have a life and this has taken up way too much time. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, fictional novels are not considered sources for electronics products, even if they have the word "Bose" in them. I'm surprised you need someone to clear that up for you. Anyway, congratulations! You have successfully established notability for "Bose Products". This is what I have been saying all along. There are definitely some articles above that qualify as sources for one particular product (while many of them are still not qualified sources, and I don't have time to go through each and every one to explain why). However, could you produce a similar list of high quality sources for such a narrow topic as "Bose 3-2-1 Home Entertainment Systems" or "Bose Acoustimass blah blah blah"? Unlikely. That is why I believe these articles need to be merged. The articles as they stand now are absolutely written as advertisements, and when the non-encyclopedic content is deleted from them, they will be much shorter, and the argument to merge will become much stronger. SnottyWong talk 11:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you don't consider items notable if they are talked about in books or if people believe that they are notable enough to create products designed to specifically for the above systems. Weird. As for the Acoustimass page, I just forgot to look, I will later though. The 321 systems are already sourced directly above. [4][5][6] -- Phoenix (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about what I think is notable or what you think is notable, it's about what Wikipedia thinks is notable. If you can find a Wikipedia policy that states that a product is notable if it gets a mention in a fictional novel, please send me the link. If there is a Wikipedia policy that states that a product is notable if other companies have created products to work along with it, then please send me the link. I have sent you the links numerous times showing you the specific Wikipedia policies that say these articles are not notable. SnottyWong talk 20:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would benefit from a high-school class in simple logic. The absence of a policy that states "X is notable if Y" when Y is anyway ludicrous does not mean that X is non-notable. Nor does WP have any (AFAIK) policies that state "X is not notable", merely a long list of policies that state "X does not indicate notability by Y" (and do not preclude X demonstrating notability through Z instead). You seem obsessed with proving notability through fictional novels, when no-one else is trying to do so. Nor does a lack of notability for that reason (fictional novels) have any relevance to a separate reason, such as mention in relevant publications for that field (magazines on consumer electronics). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix79, those sources for 321 don't hack it. When a magazine article simply lists a Bose product as being a possible choice out of a number of other products, it doesn't confer notability. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you would benefit from a course in grammar, because I have no idea what you're talking about. Phoenix listed a fictional novel as one of his "sources" to establish notability, and then defended that source multiple times in the conversations above. That was what I was referring to. Wikipedia has an immense collection of articles that define what is and is not notable, and what is and is not a valid source. I can back up my arguments with specific WP policies which show that Phoenix's sources are not valid, and that these articles are not notable (see the mountains of evidence above). I'm simply demonstrating that Phoenix cannot do the same. If he could, we wouldn't be having this argument. There is no flaw in my logic. If a subject is to be deemed notable, it must fit WP's policies for notability. If a source is to be deemed valid, it must fit WP's policies for sources. All I'm saying is, provide evidence for your argument. Provide the WP policies that prove these articles to be notable, and that prove your sources to be valid. It shouldn't be too difficult to wrap your head around that logic, should it? SnottyWong talk 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by I can back up my arguments with specific WP policies which show that Phoenix's sources are not valid, and that these articles are not notable (see the mountains of evidence above). I'm simply demonstrating that Phoenix cannot do the same. If he could, we wouldn't be having this argument. I have quoted WP:N to you and you disagree what is considered independent reliable reviews. But if you want, here is one that gives some examples of what would be notable, two in particular:

1. Microsoft Word satisfies this criterion because people who are wholly independent of Microsoft have written books about it.
2. The Oxford Union satisfies this criterion for having two books (by Graham and by Walter) written and published about it.

So if books make a subject notable (hoping to get money by association with that product) wouldn't accessories made specifically for them and fakes to look like them make them notable? But I guess thats not really a nessacary argument any more since you agree with the other sources I have found.

I also believe that someone asked about prices. That is VERY common if you look at other pages on wikipedia, actually other pages go into much more detail that found on the Bose pages PlayStation 3 launch#Release data and pricing Wii launch#Release dates and pricing, Pioneer BDR-101A, Wii#System sales & Lexus RX Hybrid. For gods sake even the Apple Mighty Mouse article talks about how much it costs!!!! -- Phoenix (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Along Came Mary: A Bad Girl Creek Novel by Jo-Ann Mapson (listed as one of your supposed "sources") is hardly a book written about Bose products. Secondly, just because WP says that a product is considered notable if there are independent books written about them does not mean that the same policy is applicable when an independent company offers accessories for those products. I don't know how you can possibly jump to that conclusion. Thirdly, per both WP:NOTDIR (item 5) and WP:OSE, your argument on including prices and warranty information are clearly not valid. The first couple paragraphs of WP:PRODUCT clearly show that these articles need to be merged with their parent article. Per, WP:PRODUCT, "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." This is clearly not the case as the Bose Corporation article is actually moderately short.SnottyWong talk 14:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sources indicate that the topics meet WP:V and WP:N]], which is all that we can ask. Batch nominations are seldom a good idea, particularly in instances like this. I would probably agree with others though that eventually key products and innovations should remain while lesser known ones are grouped together in a "List of..". Having said that, AfD is not cleanup. A couple of mergefrom/mergeto tags post AFD closure should eb sufficient to gain consensus. Gazimoff 10:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Create an article about Bose products and put the most relevant information there. We do not need a catalog of every Bose product ever. Miami33139 (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are only eight articles under discussion here, one for each of several quite separate product categories. Whilst I'd agree with your general point, that's not far from what we already have. There aren't articles on "every Bose product ever". Nor would merging headphones and speakers be appropriate, or would lead to coherent articles. Bose make a wide range of products, we need more than one article to cover them. There may well be scope for some merging between particular articles, should anyone want to discuss that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was just browsing randomly and got to this but when I clicked history I realized back in February I added 4 brackets to this page!! 4 bytes. Don't jsut throw that away! A link to my power handling article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all of them together, make List of Bose products or something. Please notice that searches in google books pick up all the advertisments in magazines (example). Seriously, product reviews are not exactly reliable sources, and wikipedia is not a list of every model ever manufactured by a company. Get some serious source explaining the impact of Bose products in the market, in society, in the technology of the field, etc. (I suppose that this AfD will go down in flames and that the articles will have to be merged one by one....) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emric, are you actually saying that if the AfD ends in keep, rather than merge, you will go ahead to merge them one at a time anyway? Agreed, merge is a separate editorial decision, but we normally think it wrong to do so in clear violation of a close, i( assuming of course that to be the close). It might indeed be possible to obtain enough consensus for them, but I suspect these merges would find enough opposition that they would not get consensus. (As for the merits of merging, It makes as much sense as merging all the articles of Ford Automobiles. What we want to avoid if making too many articles on closely related individual product models if the product model is not individually very significant--which some but certainly not all of Bose's products may even be, Don't run to the other extreme in lumping, for it will just encourage those who want to split every possible variation separately, as a collector's wiki would do. ` DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the result is Keep or No Consensus, it will likely be as a result of bundling all of the articles into one AfD, and I think it would still be appropriate to attempt to build consensus for merging them one at a time. If that consensus cannot be found through discussions on the article's talk pages, then each article will have to get its own individual AfD. SnottyWong talk 11:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep All- sources back up pages & show notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.240.163.221 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The trouble with the merge proposal is that there does not appear to be much more worth merging which isn't covered in the article already. Redirect to Brütal Legend#Characters may be done at editorial discretion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Brütal Legend[edit]

List of characters in Brütal Legend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Was a PROD, removed with a suggestion of a merge. I would be all for than in normal situations, but in this case, the main article already contains all this information (there's a characters section with voices and a full plot that this duplicates). The few characters not represented (Fletus, etc.) are minor and do not impact the story, and thus need not be mentioned. In general, one-off works like this do not need a separate character list and thus there is no need for this article. MASEM (t) 22:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With no sources and no notability, I say yes to the deletion. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will say this: there actually are probably sources for 50% of this list outside of plot, most discussed in the present Brutal Legend article. In other words I would agree this list would meet notability requirements with some effort to add sources. But I would still think it very redundant and unnecessary to the present article about the game given the limited level of detail we can source in that fashion. Again, I still point to my statement that a list of characters from a single work are rarely appropriate to have if you can build that into the main article. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Muchness (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - important characters should be included within the plot summary of the main article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agreed that notable characters should be in the main article. Additionally this isn't a long-standing series that merits some sort of list. Truthfully it comes down to WP:GAMECRUFT when all these minor characters are listed for a non-series game. --Teancum (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• merge I suggested the merge, though with some hesitation as I am aware of the duplication of coverage. I did so, because I think the presentation here was clearer in general, though iI did not match up individual characters. . That's the sort of thing to discuss on the talk page. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the parent article. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis City Sound Chorus[edit]

Memphis City Sound Chorus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable music organization. Lacks any coverage outside of official website and social networking sites likely created by the organization itself (Facebook, MySpace, etc.) Zero google news or book hits. RadioFan (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. No real coverage. It appears from their website that they might be having their first show on November 12th. Snottywong (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, no claim to notability made (unless you count being called "extraordinary"). Hairhorn (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted versions might have the barest claim to notability, but not much, delete at whatever speed seems best. Hairhorn (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Hall[edit]

Raymond Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear notable. Long time pilot, who is now a candidate for federal office. WP:POLITICIAN not met. Author claims when declining PROD that if subject is elected, he will be appointed Minister of Transport - but no reliable sources cite this, and Wikipeida is not a crystal ball. Singularity42 (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unelected politician with no significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:POLITICIAN ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:POLITICIAN requires that a politician be an elected official in a reasonably high office, or that he/she has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Neither of these are the case. Snottywong (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Délivrance. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foni Tu Argile[edit]

Foni Tu Argile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD removed by creator with no improvement. Fails notability for music singles. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC) (completing nom for IP editor - Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge / redirect. Although I completed the nom for 98.248.33.198 (talk · contribs), the usual procedure for nn singles is to merge to the album or artist. Merge what can be sourced to Délivrance, which does appear to be notable based on the reviews in the info box.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (or merge if it's worth it to Delivrance) - Fails notability guidelines, hasn't achieved anything particularly notable, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Délivrance, relevant information is already there so no need to merge. As a note, the song does have some degree of (small "n") notability (as opposed to WP:N in that it was featured on NPRs All Things Considered as the 'song of the day'. I added the referenced info to the song (in the oft-chance it survives) and album pages. As said, it does not meet WP:NSONG in that it hasn't been ranked on national or significant music charts, won significant awards or honors or have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. J04n(talk page) 02:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most are convinced that the sources are sufficient.  Sandstein  09:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from fallacy[edit]

Argument from fallacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article is clearly not notable. The original creator wrote: 'This fallacy may be known as something else. I just added it because I have heard it used so many times in discussion groups etc.' There are no academic sources. The Fallacy Files gives a fake citation (the index is available online). SquaredCircle (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Delete Redirecting to Denying the antecedent is probably just confusing. Favonian (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject_Logic. I notice they have a zoo of requested fallacy articles but I am not sure if this is, or could be, one of them. Please also note that the content is fundamentally different from Denying the antecedent. --Pgallert (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to fallacy at least as an interim solution. The point of the article seems to be to assert that it is a fallacy to conclude that a fallacious argument inevitably leads to a false conclusion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- the "Fallacy fallacy" is a notable fallacy as the original author says. However, it does not really matter what any original creator writes. Have you patroled the new articles? Some are quite raw. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's been around since 2005. There are no academic sources. This was something dreamed up in discussion groups. Google searches bring up only mirrors of this article. Which criteria are you using to establish that this is a notable fallacy? SquaredCircle (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete Hug it and Call it "George" Whatever -- it's possibly the most commonly committed fallacy on the Internet. Dzlk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - So, this is kind of cool. I can't find any scholarly sources or references to this fallacy, so it was probably originally a non-notable neologism. However, the depth and extent of forum arguments, blogs, and educational courses directly quoting the Wikipedia text across google - and these are manual citations, not mirrors or bot-copies - suggests that the Wikipedia article, deservedly or otherwise, has popularised this term and made it notable. It's a case of an article generating notability for itself; shouldn't have been allowed to happen, but it has, and now the article should be kept. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no depth or extent of sources on this topic. It's entirely original research. The majority of hits on Google are mirrors. You're incorrect, friend. SquaredCircle (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your claim that it is original research, and "clearly" not notable is the only original research I see. Google comes up with over 100,000 hits on both "Fallacy fallacy" and "Argumentum ad logicam". A cursory effort would have sufficed to see this. It is also included in the Fallacy Files which is a sufficiently RS as well. I have also added another source as well. What exactly makes your belief so "clear" ? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think SquaredCircle might be referring to the fact that almost all the Ghits use the exact same wording as the Wikipedia article, which suggests that either they're sourcing Wikipedia, or the article text is a copyright violation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just a different way of explaining an Association fallacy (or perhaps some other form of red herring: "an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue"). Seems to me that if A (a false premise) is associated with B, it is guilt by association to assume that B is also false. T34CH (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, but rename There are lots of sources for "Argumentum ad logicam" and "Argument to logic" which are RS.[7][8] "Fallacy fallacy" is also given as an alternative name sometimes, but "argument from fallacy" is not found in RS sources. T34CH (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - used by at least by a few scholarly works. This is an easy rescue. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Ooooh, you almost had me change my mind, but it looks like all those sources are popping up because they contain the phrase "to separate argument from fallacy..." For example: "There can be no separation of argument from fallacy by the clear, simple rules of pure, unsophisticated logic, if we deal in such loose and general declamations." (looks quite the opposed of what this article is about). The rest are all about the desirable traits of a lawyer: "... if he can reason with precision, and separate argument from fallacy, by the clear simple rules of unsophisticated logic...". T34CH (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can filter out undesired results on google by using "-" before the key word. For instance "separate". I tried but still no good results. --Deleet (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google Scholar and Google Book search show enough results. Some lawyers use this term a lot it seems. Article is well done, showing some good examples that very clearly explained the concept. Dream Focus 04:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• reply You gotta read the sources! The scholar ones have NOTHING to do with this term... just happen to be the same words in the same order... nothing to do with this article (bolded because I already pointed that out above). Also, the discussion above indicates that web searches get only non-RS sources (mostly WP mirrors). If you found something different, please tell us so I can change my vote. T34CH (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The fallacy is discussed by logicians, though not necessarily under that name. I have added a reference to a book published by Springer (which publishes textbooks and academic works) and tightened up the wording a bit. -moritheil^Talk 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets basic sourcing requirements. The logic itself is valid. --Whoosit (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cannot find a source that defines this fallacy. Most of the Google returns say "separate argument from fallacy" or the like; in other words, this is a combination of words that happens to occur while talking about arguments. It is not, however, a known, capital-F Fallacy. Abductive (reasoning) 01:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the source in the article? It appears that logicians do not call it by this name, but it is nevertheless a known fallacy. Renaming the article may be appropriate. -moritheil^Talk 03:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted for reading convenience (don't take my word for it, go to the source and read page XXV):

"It is arguable that Aristotle would have been prepared to extend the death-of-argument 
metaphor to all fallacies.  There is no doubt that Aristotle thinks that fallacies are 
serious mistakes.  This is also my own view, but it is subject to a tautologous seeming 
qualification: Fallacies are serious mistakes when they are indeed fallacies! Whether we 
are thinking of Aristotle's original thirteen or what I call the gang of eighteen, it is 
apparent that rarely are arguments of these various types fallacies just because they are
of that type.  So, for example, when an ad hominem argument or an ad verecundiam argument
is a fallacy, it is not so merely because it has the form of an ad hominem or an
ad verecundiam argument.  That is to say, fallaciousness is not intrinsic to arguments
of these kinds; and the same is true for nearly them all, whether Aristotle's thirteen or
the gang of eighteen.  This is both a setback and an attraction.  The setback is that the
fallacy theorist must be able to specify the varying conditions under which an argument
of a given kind is and is not fallacious.  This is more easily said than done . . . "[1]

-moritheil^Talk 04:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not clear what the appropriate new name would be from the above quote. Abductive (reasoning) 06:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the most descriptive and immediately understood name for this, but be sure the other names (which are roughly equally likely in a Google search) redirect to it. -MBHiii (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A bogus taxonomy of logic not supported by reliable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is clearly a badly written article, but the concept is notable. The "Fallacy fallacy" has been referred to by numerous reliable sources as other editors here have pointed out. The Squicks (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I contacted the author of FallacyFiles and had him recheck his source. He confirmed that it is there. What is the problem? If you have the book, then please scan the relevant pages and upload them somewhere for all to see that the reference is "fake". --Deleet (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as an article that had been proposed for deletion without challenge for seven days.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power 50[edit]

Power 50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Clear-cut spam for local newspaper supplement, created by COI editor. Orange Mike | Talk 22:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Birmingham Post after significant rewrite to resolve copyright issues. The subject is not notable enough for its own article but warrants inclusion into its parent article. Snottywong (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Stub and merge — Do away with most of it per WP:COPYVIO and WP:NOTWEBHOST. The Post has its own website; let them go use it. Short mention in the Wikipedia article Birmingham Post might be appropriate only if local notability is established by WP:Reliable sources not in conflict of interest with the authors/producers of the list. Otherwise, away with all of it. --Closeapple (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyright/Merge Understood there may be copyright issues, which seems like Post and Future have shared ownership. However, information itself is accurate and neutral so suggest a merge with Post page? --Nchiang01 (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. i know even less but i can see a lack of consensus when I see one Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby sullivan[edit]

Bobby sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The only claim to fame in this schlock of partially coherent text and red links is having fronted a band that does not appear to be notable, either, and will be AFD'd as well. Notability is asserted, so no speedy (and the hell with prod), so here we are. Google shows enough to indicate that this guy exists, but nothing music-related in Google News, so I end up thinking delete. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 00:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing in search would support a claim of notibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mblumber (talk • contribs)

• I'll hold off on AFD'ing Soulside as I guess it satisfies WP:BAND by having releases under a "Major Independent Label" (is Dischord Records "major?" It's "major" enough to have its own category, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything). Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 01:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Text is a bit more coherent now, and more to the point, I hope. This Google News search lists four articles from the Washington Post that establish notability, I believe (and that mention Sullivan as well as Soulside). I have no doubt more could be found; I might go looking later. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also this. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Drmies; meets WP:BAND criterion 1.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article is about Bobby Sullivan, not Soulside. The band may meet WP:BAND, but that doesn't automatically mean that each member of the band gets their own article. See the following from the bottom of WP:BAND: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Snottywong (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Multiple of those search results seem to be about Seven League Boots (not soulside), suggesting that other band is notable. If that is so then Sullivan would be notable on the member of two notable bands bit. If that is so then trim the unsourced stuff and leave article as a navigational aid for when Seven League Boots is created. If Seven League Boots is not notable this article should be redirected to Soulside. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to their official website, the last (and possibly only) show that "Seven League Boots" played was in May 2006 at a tiny cafe in Chicago. I'm unable to find anything that remotely indicates this band is notable per WP:BAND. SnottyWong talk 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Seven League Boots in DC in either the late '80s or very early '90s so, no, it was decidedly not their only show. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Coverage of the band appears scant, and in the coverage of Sullivan is even thinner. I agree with Snottywong's analysis. (I was going to close this, but the result seemed unclear, so adding my personal opinion to aid another admin. Don't put too much weight on my opinion though, I know almost nothing about music.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reviewing the argument, the sources in the article, and the level of support for each side (running at 4-2 for deletion), I have found that the deletion side have made a stronger argument, that the sources provided do not provide much coverage of "Bum Reviews with Chester A. Bum" (but rather the parent website), and that the side supporting deletion has considerably more support. Regarding Ryanasaurus0077's argument comparing this to YouTube, this closer remarks that YouTube have completely different inclusion criteria than Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bum Reviews with Chester A. Bum episodes[edit]

List of Bum Reviews with Chester A. Bum episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

crufty linkfarm, no list item is notable. lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'd go so far as to question the notability of That Guy with the Glasses in the first place (of which this is a subpart). D. J. Cartwright (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The series is referenced, if not directly named, by notable sources. If the episode links are deemed a problem, they can be removed without deleting the whole list. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independent references give only trival comment on the mere existence of Bum Reviews. No independent reference given has reported on any detail of Bum Reviews let alone any individual episode. Look at the referencea provided, where is the coverage of Bum reviews? A search has failed to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has only been referred to as "other shows" but, as one of only two significant other shows, that is still a reference albeit an indirect reference. My vote stands, for the moment at least. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I say Keep. If this is deleted just for not being notable, it's the same as YouTube deleting the Nostalgia Critic's reviews just because the big studios didn't find Mr. Walker's 5 Second Movies to be the least bit funny and those reviews happened to be on the same channel with the 5 Second Movies. Leave Bum Reviews Alone! --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with the first poster. Andy120290 (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the notability of That Guy with the Glasses is a factor in this, I'd like to point out that it has coverage in multiple notable and reliable sources. (I admit that I'm not sure if the first poster is question here is the original nominator or the first response.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My turn to comment - I think the nominator is just PO'd because one more user (me) voted Keep than Delete, and so he asked that it be relisted "so consensus may be reached". I think he really hates That Guy with the Glasses tons. And Duffbeerforme, D.J. Cartwright, and Andy120290, if you're reading this, Leave That Guy Alone! --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM. No one asked for relisting. Each relister saw the not enogh support yet for deleteion and lack of good reasons to keep, so relisted. This is not a vote, your non-vote nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT with a straw man at it's centre so not much weight is applied to it. ps, what does Britney have to do with That Guy?, pps for AdamBMorgan and maybe D.J. Cartwright, any question of the notability of That Guy with the Glasses is not for this afd to decide, If that question needs to be asked it should be done elsewhere (imo notable so I'm not going to ask that question elsewhere). Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I linked to Leave Britney Alone, I was making an allusion to the title by saying "Leave (INSERT NAME HERE) Alone!" --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I never suggested that That Guy with the Glasses should be deleted, but I do support the proposal to delete List of Bum Reviews with Chester A. Bum episodes. Andy120290 (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I support AdamBMorgan's theory that the series is referenced. --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a content fork of an article on a website. Absolutely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 01:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It isn't a content fork, it's an article spinout; it would make the main article about the website too big to include it there. No comment on the appropriateness either way. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (withdrawn). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hotel van Cleef[edit]

Grand Hotel van Cleef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't know what the notability standards of german Wikipedia is but 7 ghits doesn't quite cover it. Delete non notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a few more sources coming up from the above tool but when searcihhgn this morning there is a link with 7 results 2 in german. On this one there is 195, however a reader of German might help because it would seem to have heightened it's potential notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- I have 31,500 given, and even 194 in news. Even if it were 7, Google search results by themselves aren't grounds for deletion. First article by a new contributor to the English Wikipedia so s/he should have time enough to work on improvements with this discussion open. I removed CSD tag on a subjective call to at least give the editor a fair shot with an article. I will 100% agree that the article stands little chance on its own without sizable improvements, though. To the author, good luck. Datheisen (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--and possibly in a speedy manner. Look at this, for instance, a full-length article in Der Spiegel. Seriously, I think the nominator should consider adding the study German to their list of activities for the Christmas vacation: look at the results of this Google search. An article in the Financial Times Germany, and article in the Schwabische Zeitung, an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung... Hell, consider withdrawing this: you can't win it. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still don't find it notable, take a look at this search....[[9]]Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in our notability guidelines to say that they should have been covered in recent news. Look earlier than October 2009 and you'll find that there's more than enough to pass WP:GNG. -SpacemanSpiff 04:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I learned something today. I didn't know the google hits were by date. Consider it wqithdrawn my mistake. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Hell. Thanks for withdrawing, and thanks to Spiff for their comment. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remobo[edit]

Remobo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable software product. Could not find significant coverage. Article started by SPA. Haakon (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I concur. This software appears to still be in beta, which implies that it is quite new. Since very few people are currently using this software, significant coverage from reliable sources cannot be produced. Snottywong (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This does not have any significant references. Miami33139 (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 01:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zuraidah Alman[edit]

Zuraidah Alman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. Does not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER nor WP:BIO either as I see no awards/nominations/large fan base. [10][11][12][13] ƒ(Δ)² 17:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. After some reflection, I believe that TV journalists who have appeared prominently on several different programs are notable under criterion 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER, since they are "television personalities" (and perhaps "opinion makers") who have "had significant roles in multiple notable ... television shows." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin, and other participants in the AfD Per discussion here, consensus is that WP:CREATIVE applies here, and not WP:ENTERTAINER as cited above. ƒ(Δ)² 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Holding a brief discussion on a noticeboard, without having the courtesy to inform anyone who has expressed opinions contrary to yours, does not achieve "consensus' to ignore the text of a guideline. This is the sort of content dispute that ought to be worked out through reasoned discussion in context (that's what the AFD process is for, although it's often hard to tell); and trying to short-circuit it through low profile discussions elsewhere isn't a great display of good faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is clear consensus actually. 6 editors agree ENTERTAINER does not apply there. You're the only one who thinks it does. ƒ(Δ)² 17:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a brief, low-profile discussion started and "closed" by you without even having the courtesy to notify me of the potential debate. It ignores the well-establish practice/consensus that more than one notability guideline (eg, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR) may apply to an article. And it never addresses what the guideline actually says, particularly with regard to "television personalities" and "opinion makers." Finally, that 6-1 "consensus" counts each of your posts as a separate !vote, which is pretty pathetic.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still open, if you wish to comment there. I haven't closed it. I wanted a third opinion; I already know yours. Additionally (I've mentioned this before) I don't think multiple policies apply here at all so well-established practice or not, it doesn't apply here. At all. And finally, I'm not counting each of my own posts as a separate !vote, I'm counting the comments left by other editors in that discussion. Please get your facts straight. Cheers, ƒ(Δ)² 10:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Why do we have all these CTV anchor pages? Do we really need a page for every single CTV anchor? Refer to the WP:NOT section on indiscriminate information. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not a !vote. Sometimes things are right in front of your face, but you don't see them soon enough. Category:Television journalists is a subcategory of Category:Television personalities, as shown on this page [14], so that WP:ENTERTAINER expressly applies, so that the claimed failure to meet WP:CREATIVE doesn't control the outcome, and the article should be kept Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't believe news anchors qualify under ENT unless they're doing entertainment news. It doesn't read like she had multiple significant roles, and there are no rs to support anything. Lara 14:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Abebenjoe (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Claiming that a news anchor satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER because they've "had significant roles in multiple...television shows" is a stretch. Not notable. Snottywong (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that the article, even if it just barely meets GNG or BIO, ought to be deleted per the biographies of living persons policy. NW (Talk) 01:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vilayna Lasalle[edit]

Vilayna Lasalle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:ENT. It's been two+ years since the article squeaked by its first AfD and it still doesn't appear the subject has done or will do anything of note. Her IMDb page is a list of bit parts of the "Sexy Girl #2" variety and having been in music videos has not saved similar articles in some recent AfDs I've seen. It looks like the article survived its first AfD based on some very lenient analysis of the refs used, of which the Muscle and Fitness ref is the only one even close to meeting WP:RS, although it's little more than a paragraph and not nearly enough to satisfy significant reliable source coverage guidelines.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First AfD is here.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 04:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence that this person passes WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. Kevin (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep She seems to meet WP:BIO through meeting WP:GNG with in-depth interviews in both IGN and Black Star News, and significant coverage in Muscle and Fitness. The subject seems to meet the GNG. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In my opinion she passes the "Significant coverage" part of WP:GNG (see links given in the previous comment by MichaelQSchmidt). Optimale ^Gu 11:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promo-page, fails BIO and ENT. Maybe she passes ATHLETE with the Lingerie Bowl being the highest level of competition for Lingerie football? Yea, probably not. Lara 13:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-- but this is a challenging case of an AfD, I'll admit. To me, it's kind of like every garage band AfD where someone has 1-2 short info paragraphs in higher-level mass media, but with modeling photos instead of song names elsewhere. Even so, it'd be a challenge to convince me that someone whose notable mentions peak with at: 1) One-off tertiary tv character appearances, and 2) generic music video dancing stand-in is going to stick out much. ...Again, I mean past the modeling pictures. Alas, such a Red Herring here. All the sources given are the same (imdb), are almost 100% informational and not actual "sources", or probably shouldn't be on the page in the first place like the social networking site links. Let the record show that 2 years having passed without additions to this article possible to improve quality is precisely why WP:CRYSTAL is oft mentioned in entertainment-related deletion discussions. Datheisen (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The assertion that he is "just barely notable" is not enough to outweight the several delete arguments. Kevin (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Augustine[edit]

Greg Augustine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

no real notability shown, all movies redlinked (including deleted([15])). production company deleted ([16]). (yes I contributed to one of those AFDs). after spamming articles are deleted we have two sources which provide no coverage past a trivial mention of Augustine's name. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as just barely notable enough, despite articles about his projects being themselves deleted. Independent films and independent filmmakers will not get the same press coverage as filmmakers touted by big-budget studios. The coverage and notability of his works is his as the creator of those works Greg Augustine films & reviews in On Milwaukee, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Its just barely enough... but allowing this one to remain and grow serves the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with MichaelQSchmidt; I think Augustine has enough coverage to be considered notable as an independent filmmaker. (I might add that it's particularly difficult to find articles on this Greg Augustine due to extensive trivial coverage of Greg Augustine, the stepson of murdered Nevada State Controller Kathy Augustine. But I digress.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article as it is doesn't establish notability. Two references, no notable works. Lara 21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the relevant criteria for filmmakers are at WP:CREATIVE and on any reading of the article Augustine falls far short of meeting any of them. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevent criteria is WP:N of which WP:BIO is a subset. He does have notable works that have themselves been the subject of articles in reliable sources. Issues with the quality of the current article are best addressed with cleanup and expansion... not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:N is the criteria for creating a presumption of notability. As WP:MILL points out, obviously a topic can be well documented in independent sources and yet still not be notable (eg individual residential dwellings, suburban restaurants, etc). WP:CREATIVE provides further guidelines for assessing whether the presumption of notability should be rebutted; the fact he doesn't meet any of those is a strong argument that he's not notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not belive the the essay WP:Run-of-the-mill applies here, as we're speaking about a person and not an ediface. Yes, thousands of unknown filmmakers create films that no one ever hears about, and yes, those thousands of unknown filmmakers might be considered commonplace... but a filmmaker whose films are publicly screened and whose films receive decent reviews would seem to just tickle over the bar at WP:BIO by squeeking in at WP:GNG with the coverage of his works... barely. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like a no consensus, default to delete to me, why is it getting relisted? ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Doesn't sound that way to me. Unless there is some sort of clear BLP violation, non-consensus AfD's usually default to keep per WP:AFD, How an AfD discussion is closed where it states (until someone decides to change it) "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept. Since the subject of the article has not himself come forward to request a deletion of the article, and since notability per sources has not been 100% disproved, and since there is a no consensus, and the encyclopedic article does not violate policy, a keep is the indication per guideline. That it was relisted seems like no one wishes that debate over at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Default_to_delete_for_BLPs to spill over to here. NW is showing wisdom. Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. do we have any sources that discuss Lizard King as a meme? Apparantly not so by policy the outcome is clear Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lizard King (meme)[edit]

The Lizard King (meme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nom for deln for administrative purposes but
No opinion on outcome.
The nom'd article was ProD'ed two years ago with reason

Per WP:NOR, OR and trivia. Flagged for sources and improvement for a while now, sources and improvement have not happened.

Consideration of ProD was cut short by overwriting with a Rdr to Jim Morrison and discarding all content. The very active (tho IMO largely unproductively active) work on the article was silenced with the effect of, but not the process for, an AfD ending in "Del & Rdr w/o Merge".
(My interest is limited to my concern for appropriate process in de-facto deletions, where my attention was drawn to it in creating the needed Dab Lizard King; i retitled the nom'd article bcz of the confusing effect of treating The Lizard King as a title distinct from Lizard King.)
--Jerzy•t 21:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes lack of links to an article is given as a deletion cause. In that context, the Dab entry i just remembered to add probably doesn't count. The JM bio lk'd a reference to the article under consideration here -- removed by the editor who overwrote the article with the Rdr; i have not restored a link from the bio to it. I'll do a survey later today of what articles lk to The Lizard King (now Dab and was Rdr, so low result is likely to prove nothing), and consider a search for lks to JM in context of LK mentions.
  --Jerzy•t 21:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  
  • There were 3 such articles and a list, and i've described them below in response to the first delete opinion.
    --Jerzy•t 06:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    

• Keep - but re-write extensively. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems mainly to be a list of times people have used the word 'lizard' followed by the word 'king' (or 'queen'), which does not a meme make. Declan Clam (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question deserves more careful consideration than that, e.g., i wouldn't be surprised if most of the games are such cases and should be pitched out of this article (and too bad if their enthusiasts welcomed chances to get them mentioned in WP w/o writing an article on each of them) -- tho

    "communing" with the LK, in List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#The Truth is clearly about the meme growing out of Morrison's poem, and apparently has linked to this page, appropriately, since before overwrite.

  The question of the proportion of irrelevant instances does not weigh in the deletion decision; what we need to know is whether what's left is sufficient for a stub on the meme. As further points bearing on that:

  The Healing Game also has an old link that was appropriate and remains so.
  The third old lk, from Stephen Nichols, was misdirected, and i've converted it to a red link to the play.
  The one in Turbonegro was, FWIW, not mis-targeted to here, but IMO the passage it was in was not germane to the article, and i removed that whole section.

  --Jerzy•t 06:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

• weak Keep There seem to be a sufficient number of clear examples. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge best examples to Jim Morrison. This is not a meme, but an alter ego, like Slim Shady. Abductive (reasoning) 01:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I cannot see any evidence that this has been recognized as a "meme". Bundling together lots of examples of the phrase "Lizard King", and then calling it a "meme", seems like original research by synthesis. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Party of Labor[edit]

American Party of Labor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a very new party which does not yet meet the policy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). ~YellowFives 20:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - A very new party for which no reliable sources exist to support its existence, much less notability. All references on the page are self-referential from the blog or web site. Both Google and Bing news searches for "American Party of Labor" find no hits. It takes a lot for me to agree that a political party article needs to be deleted, but in this case, I think we've failed to meet even a loose definition of notability. The party has a blog through which it can publicize itself. It doesn't need Wikipedia's help. -Miskaton (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. No reliable independent sources can be found. Snottywong (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Food Stress Syndrome[edit]

Food Stress Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Four of the five references given point to copies of the same press release. There is no evidence of notability, and the concept doesn't even make sense, given the description in the press release, which says that "food stress syndrome" is measured by determining the extent to which people change their eating habits. Since people can choose to eat or avoid certain foods based on new information without incurring stress over it, the explanation doesn't make sense. Further, when I run a Google search for "food stress syndrome" -unprecedented I get only 12 hits, including this article and several others that appear unrelated. Google Books and Google Scholar return nothing. Google News Archive returns one article from Eugene, Oregon, in 1990 that is from a different context. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - per nom, not yet a notable or verifiable phenomenon, and press releases aren't reliable sources. -Miskaton (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user added the following to the Medicine deletion sorting page, I am moving it here. Fences&Windows 20:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC):[reply]

• Food Stress Syndrome is a new phenomenon in our society that have been studied and measured in the course of some 4 surveys in Canada. The first source is a link to the summary of the last survey conducted in 2007 or 2008. A few conferences were given on this topic such as The Canadian Society of Nutrition Management (CSNM) at their annual conference in Montreal, Quebec, May 22-24, 2008 at the Mariott Chateau Champlain. Many other conferences were pronounced in French under the "Syndrome de Stress Alimentaire" title. To ignore this phenomenon is like to ignore the impact of food and nutrition science research on consumers' attitude and behaviour. It would be short sighted to do so! Great concept! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.157.229 (talk • contribs) [17]
  • The only phenomenon that the article mentions is that some people avoid food that they are told is bad for them or make a point of eating good they are told is good for them. (1) This is not a "phenomenon" except in the most trivial sense.The scientific term for it is "Duh!" (2) "Stress" is not a term for this. Perhaps there is an actual concept by the name "Food Stress Syndrome", but the concept described in the current article is not that concept, and we don't need to have an article by that name until someone chooses to write an article about the topic that it denotes. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a term coined by Isabelle Paquet of the Canadian commercial nutrition consultants, ISA-Nutrition, and is only used in their press releases. It has no notability. Fences&Windows 20:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of it is based on a very few unpublished papers from a commercial firm. This is not significant publication. The ip's argument amounts to: it ought to be notable, and might be some day--which is of course not the same as being notable already. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on French Wikipedia is also on its way to deletion. Fences&Windows 04:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm intrigued by the new addition to the article, "“Food Stress” is often thought to be an eating disorder". Almost no one's heard of it before; how can it be "often thought to be" anything? —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope I gave enough references! This concept and every study that goes with it came from French Canadian minds. Only a few publications were made in English such as at the annual Congress of the Canadian Society of Nutrition Management (CSNM) held in Montreal in May 2008. For more explanations, please consult the French version of Wikipedia. Sorry for that! On the other hand, how could you explain that this concept made it way around the globe if it was not observed everywhere? Science is barely beginning to study the impact and effects of food on human health. The consequences of those findings are having an impact on the way we eat and this phenomenon now has a name: FSS! It may seem trivial but it made a lot of sense to me and to everybody else to who I talk to! François Houde — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.157.229 (talk • contribs)

Articles by you and your colleagues in promotional trade journals like l'Alimentation is not independent, so cannot be used to show notability. Fences&Windows 01:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "For more explanations, please consult the French version of Wikipedia", 'k [18] doesn't look like they're any more impressed than us. Wikipédia est une encyclopédie, indeed. Can't find any evidence that this is an actual scientific concept, to suggest otherwise borders on spam. I assume there's plenty of other articles where information on consumer behaviour patterns re: food could go - if properly sourced - without going to all the bother of trying to popularise a neologism. Declan Clam (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, withdrawn by nominator. Non-deletion remedies can be discussed at the article talk page. The only other delete voter has expressed support for this measure.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cynllibiwg[edit]

Cynllibiwg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The idea of a "kingdom" or "polity" of Cynllibiwg seems to appear only in the works of one individual, British castle enthusiast Paul Remfry, who is by all indications a very nice and knowledgeable bloke, but who hasn't been published in scholarly presses. The only evidence for Cynllibiwg at all are three debatable references in medieval texts, which Remfry draws together with a lot of conjecture. There are no mainstream scholarly sources that mention Cynllibiwg, and Remfry's thesis doesn't appear notable in and of itself. Relevant material already appears at other articles, but a merge or redirect to any of these would not really be appropriate, as the only connection that has been drawn is by Remfry. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Cúchullain ^t/c 19:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are a fair number of hits in Gbooks on this word. Is anyone knowledgeable enough on this subject to tell if 1) it's the same Cynllibiwg, and 2) if it's enough coverage to count as notability. Also, whilst lack of coverage certainly isn't good for notability, any coverage that debunks the proposal does count. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or perhaps merge if an appropriate target is found. Four books that I can find reference it as a kingdom or dynasty, but it certainly seems like a niche that could be covered by a redirect to an existing article. -Miskaton (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I count 14 hits on Gbooks for Cynllibiwg. Many of these are books directly referencing Renfry's work, which does show that his idea has gotten somewhat more traction in scholarly presses than I'd thought, but I don't think it's enough to demonstrate that his idea is notable enough for its own encyclopedia article. Some of the other hits are editions of the Historia Brittonum or references to it. The Historia does contain a mention of a place called Cinlipiuc, which has been rendered as Cynllibiwg; however, there is no indication that this is a kingdom or polity (it's called simply a regione). If we were to merge or redirect, we would still be putting a whole lot of weight on Remfry's novel theory.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — The idea of a "kingdom Cynllibiwg" has gotten no traction in any scholarly works that I found (including those in the links given above). There is no mention of anything like it in any scholarly work by any reputable authority of which I am aware, past or present. Building an article on the speculation/conjecture of a layman who has no credentials in the field (such as Remfry) sounds like an expression of a "fringe theory" or "popular history". Cynllibiwg is, however, mentioned in works that do not support the article's thesis. For example, in the 4 books mentioned above by Miskaton:
  • "Welsh military institutions" makes a passing reference without citing its source on one page, and in a footnote of another page, where it refers to the "re-establishment of local autonomy in Cynllibiwg", citing Trans. Radnorshire Soc (1995). Nothing suggesting a kingdom.
  • "Thirteenth Century England: Proceedings of the Gregynog Conference, 2005" has a footnote that states without authority that Rhwng Gwy a Hafren was originally the 4th kingdom of Wales and was known as Cynllibiwg. It may be someone's OR, but is not traction, and certainly not a scholarly reference on this topic.
  • "The Welsh Princes" has a passing reference (without citing sources) to "Hywel ap Goronwy, scion of the house of Cynllibiwg", in a paragraph saying Ystrad Tywi was comprised of the lordships of Cantref Mawr, Bychan, Cydweli and Gower. Nothing suggesting a kingdom.
  • "Wales in the Early Middle Ages" by Wendy Davies mentions it as a nondescript region in passing, as was pointed out in the article's talk page quite some time ago. Nothing suggesting a kingdom.

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but modify content. There is enough material to justify the existence of an article on this. The problem is the content, and statements like "Cynllibiwg was an area...." We don't know that to be the case. "Cynllibiwg is a name given to an area of Wales which some scholars have suggested ....", etc., and covered around by caveats, would make for a more legitimate (and probably very short) article. But an article of some sort should exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article to remove speculation based on Remfry, as well as the material included to counter it. As you can see all that is left is a bald description of the mention in the Historia Brittonum, followed by two scholars' suggestions that words in later English texts may be related. However, the reference in the Red Book of the Exchequer is still sketchy, as I can't tell that the editor actually suggested that there was a connection with Cynllibiwg. If this connection only appears in Remfry's work then that whole couple of sentences will have to go, leaving even less information.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now. Definite keep. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments by Cúchullain and Notuncurious that Remfry's views are only self-published are incorrect - they have been published in the journal British Archaeology, a reliable source, here, and are cited by the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust (CPAT) here. I'm not suggesting that his statements should be given undue weight, just that they should be given some weight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not say that, neither here nor in my response to your note on Talk:Cynllibiwg in section "Remfry 2K9".

I said Remfry's credentials in archaeology do not translate out of his area of competence into credentials in other fields such as political history. Also, the Council for British Archaeology publishes scholarly papers on archaeology, which is their area of expertise, and that does not include political history. Your other link with the list of publications is for archaeology, not political history. If they publish a paper in an area out of their area of expertise, such as one on political history (ie, Remfry's), that is not to give the author credit for scholarly publications out of his area of expertise.

One of the characteristics of "fringe" theories (whether or not they have merit) is they pick areas where information is minimal, which ensures that they will not be proven wrong, because if there is no evidence, then there will be no evidence that they are wrong. Also, since they do not have professional credentials to defend, they are free to promulgate virtually any kind of theory. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think we have the authority to cherry pick like that. A report published in a reliable source meets criteria for inclusion - we shouldn't be adding our own opinions as to whether it was legitimate for that source to have published it. If other reliable sources criticise Remfry's work, we should of course quote them as well - but I haven't seen anything that does, only the opinions of editors here. Sorry, but they don't count, however well qualified they may be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The fact that the subject is referred to scholarly works ought to be sufficient for the retention of the article. The real problem here is the dearth of sources on this part of Wales in the early medieval period. This means that virtually nothing is certainly known of the history of mid-Wales before (say) 1150. Paul Remfry has put forward a theory that Cynllibiwg was a kingdom. Whether or not that is correct will remain a matter of scholarly debate until kingdom come or until at least further sources emerge (which is highly improbable). The sources cited for the name (or versions of it) do exist. When the article was being actively edited I took the time to visit an acedemic library and check the texts. However, precisely where, how big, and what it was cannot be determined. Nevertheless, the referecnes cited to it clearly indicate that it was something. Since it existed, it is proper for it to have an article. A "kingdom" in this context need not mean a sovereign state: in this period, sovereignty was a matter of degree. Welsh kings frequently attended the courts of Saxon rulers, indicating that the Saxon king was their suzerain. Unfortunately I do not have ready access to Trans Radnorshire Soc and am unable to determine what it says. The article needs to set out the facts, consisting of the references to the name. It then needs to set out the opinions of scholars as to what this measn. I see no objection to this being heavily hedged about with caveats, concerning the doubts expressed over it; indeed that would be wholly proper. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC) (note edit conflict with last contribnution).[reply]

I suffered an edit conflict with Cúchullain. His shortening of the article was excessive, and I thus approve of what Ghmyrtle has done. I have slightly altered this further. The fact that Remfry has propounded a view and that other scholars have responded to it justifies having the article. It is unfortuante that Remfry choses to self-publish, not to publish in scholarly journals, but that does not wholly invalidate his work. The final paragraph of the presetn text introduces "Kenthlebiac" (which is I think a rendering of one of the other two quotations). This still needs explanation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't concerned with whether or not theories are valid, but only that they can be found in reliable sources so that readers can vet them. In this case, Remfry's theory is cited only to his personal website, which in turn cites his own self-published books. I don't like to bring up the FRINGE guideline, as this is certainly not the type of baseless crankery that we so often see in this field, but the guideline's wording is apt: "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." This is not the case for Remfry's thesis, and without that thesis, all that's left are three medieval references which may or may not be to the same thing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Cuchullain has been pursuing a personal crusade against me and other editors wiki's for a while. He tries to make his case seem reasonable and logical, but it is in fact driven by a hard-line revisionist ideology that basically seeks to push the view that nothing we think we know is true. References to Cynllibiwg in Rhyn gwy a Hafren do come up to readers of medieval Welsh history and I think it is reasonable to have a reference to that word, and potential realm, in wikipedia for readers to look up. A brief statement saying what the available academics think this name might refer to is only going to add to the comprehensive content of wikipedia without alarming people like Cuchullain who seem convinced, in some extraordinary conspiratorial paradigm, that there is a plot to 'invent' history. Certainly Welsh polities existed in that territory before the Norman Conquest, archaeological and literal evidence supports that. Cynllibiwg is the name given (based on literal sources) by some academics for that territory.I do not think it is fair or acceptable for Cuchullain - an anonymous user/editor with no qualifications in this matter at all - to call Dr. Remfry a "crank". James Frankcom 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep in current form. It gives the substance in a NPOV form. It is reasonable to expect someone to look it up here. The ultimate validity is for historians, not us. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After Ghmyrtle's addition of a proper citation for the Remfry material and our rewrite, I would like to withdraw this AfD. We can discuss non-deletion options such as merging or redirecting at the article's talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. That sounds practical, and we can move on. Regards, Notuncurious (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Lutz (coach)[edit]

Bob Lutz (coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

High school football coach - famous for winning more games than any other Ohio high school football coach. Fails WP:1E as no other indication of notability. noq (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep news coverage seems substantial enough reason to cover the topic. -Miskaton (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lutz has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, has received numerous awards including being inducted into the National High School Federation Hall of Fame and the Ohio High School Football Coaches Association Hall of Fame, and has broken a significant record in the state of Ohio. This qualifies him as notable under WP:Notability (people). Ithizar (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Ithizar. And winning more games than any other Ohio football coach is not WP:1E, it is the sum of WP:Many events which combine to make him notable. Rlendog (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Muhammad Shahid[edit]

Syed Muhammad Shahid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This person is mentioned a few times in passing, like as a speaker at a seminar.[19] I think these are trivial mentions, though, which do not meet the notability policy. If I have made a mistake in this deletion, please let me know so I can undo it. ~ YellowFives 18:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I see no claim to notability. -Miskaton (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Billotte[edit]

Christina Billotte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

utterly possibliy non-notable band member. Declined recent CSD for A7. Recently added references seem to be bogus (see discussion on talk page with link to actual text). to dramatically strengthen the notability of this person. Toddst1 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I hope you don't delete the Christina Billotte page. I am a huge fan of her guitar playing. She is a very influential musician and contributed greatly to the early Riot Grrrl movement. I don't understand why her page would get deleted. She has been interviewed all over the internet and was even cited as being influential by film director Miranda July in a New York Times interview. She is anything but, "utterly non-notable." She is mentioned in many books about punk rock in Washington DC and the Riot Grrrl movement including "Dance of Days" and "Cinderella's Big Score. She was interviewed in Guitar Player Magazine and has been listed in lists of the 100 Greatest Women Guitarists of All Time. Don't delete her page please!! RiotGrrl91 (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I understand that this AfD has been prompted by a recent edit skirmish on this article by two inexperienced editors, with good faith on both sides, and that the article needs to be better written and sourced. However I do feel that deletion would be a waste of effort, the subject is a sufficiently notable participant in both the riot grrrl and DC punk scenes. I would direct attention to this quote from P.338 of the Dance of Days book - "The energy of Bikini Kill, Bratmobile... ... Christina Billotte,... had dramatically altered the DC punk scene. Indeed RG energy would soon even surface in hardcore..." . Another notable mention would be that she is included in the Venus Zine - an authoritative source on such matters - list of 46 Greatest Female Guitarists of All Time [20]. Lastly, as a member of four notable groups (current Afd's notwithstanding) she passes WP:Music easily. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated the above into a rewrite of the article. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable per above discussion sourced content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Billotte is a member of multiple notable bands (add Casual Dots to the list [21]). Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteNon-notable band member, information is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucysim (talk • contribs) 00:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which information is incorrect? Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That editor has a personal connection to the artist and wants the information removed. Unfortunately, the editor has since been blocked for disruption (removing cited information about the artist) and is unable to answer your question.

FWIW, I think we can close this as a resounding keep. Toddst1 (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference quoted is from 2004. It doesn't say anything definitive about her current place of residence. And Lucysim seems quite insistent that it is incorrect. I'd personally opine that it should be left out. If an article materializes on Casual Dots, then their dispersal in that period might be material, otherwise not. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — this article has seen substantial referencing improvements since the AfD was initiated. I no longer have any doubts about notability here, and echo Toddst1's comment above. — The Earwig @ 04:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Chirgadze[edit]

Giorgi Chirgadze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is about non-notable soccer player, no relevant college soccer experience, no first team appearances, fails WP:GNG, WP:ATH JonBroxton (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Recreate in the future if & when any of these concerns are met. GiantSnowman 18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The official website confirms he has yet toplay a competitive match for the first team. This article can be easily recreated if and when he does so. Bettia (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Recreate if and when he makes his debut Spiderone 09:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails both WP:ATH and WP:GNG, Recreate if plays first team game Steve-Ho (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until he makes a first-team appearance. Then he will pass WP:ATH and gain notability. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If no improvement occurs, a second deletion discussion some months hence will more likely than not result in deletion, I think.  Sandstein  09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner in popular culture[edit]

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This "article" is really nothing but a giant trivia section. It's full of original research. No reliable third-party sources, just a long list of instances where in the opinion of Wikipedia editors some work of fiction quoted or otherwise referenced this work. *** Crotalus *** 17:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete; combines the worst of trivia and original research. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree that it is a terrible article, full of original research, unsourced, and written like a giant trivia section. But the fact remains that this is a classic work of literature that has had a substantial impact on popular culture. I don't know the remedy for dealing with a terrible article on a notable subject, but I don't believe that deletion is the one to use. I'd suggest turning this into a stub, placing the deleted text on a subpage, and starting from scratch.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, don't even bother restarting from scratch, it's unsalvageable. No secondary sources, nothing more than WP:SYN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not trivia, for when notable cultural artifacts, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly. These references are needed, but they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article. Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. That is not the case here. I do not see the problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged that the artifact is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. I do not see the problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given. I do not see problems with OR, because it can be sourced in detail from the correct source, the works themselves.

I would suggest possibly rewriting to separate examples where only the name was used. I would possibly move items where only the concept of albatross was used to a separate article. But in many of the present ones the culture the relationship is obvious & obviously significant on the face of it. All it needs is expansion--its a pretty good start. As explicit refs can probably be given for almost all of them, I do not see on what basis anyone could say it is unsalvageable. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Into the main article on the Ancient Mariner, and please cut out a lot of trivia such as brief jokey references from "Dad's Army" and "Samurai Jack." Warrah (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. A rewrite would be good, but this a notable aspect to the poem. Merge is also an option worth considering, but weight might be a problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - can be rescued easily, this is a notable pop-culture fixture. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Showing how a notable work has influenced other notable works throughout the ages, is something the Wikipedia needs. Dream Focus 14:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this does get kept (as I suspect it will), I think it definitely needs a great deal of cleanup and pruning; I don't mind entries about reinterpretations of the work but one-off mentions (which make up the majority of the Television and film) section need to be killed. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sourcing is all primary. The albatross symbol has it's own article. Abductive (reasoning) 01:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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