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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maha el-Samnah[edit]

Maha el-Samnah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Borderline notability that i think does not fulfill WP:BIO, not much information that isn't already in Khadr family or would belong there. IQinn (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article needs a great deal of pruning because it has clearly been written either by the individual or a close associate. The value of a portrait photograph of an individual wearing a veil is also questionable. However, I think that there was enough of a furore in the Canadian media for this individual to meet WP:GNG.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 15:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Khadr family. Some other individual members of the Khadr family are known in their own right because of press they've gotten and deserve their own articles. In this category I would include namely Ahmed Said Khadr, Abdurahman Khadr, and Omar Khadr. However, this doesn't apply to lesser-known members of the entire family. I appreciate that Maha el-Samnah is well-known for that CBC interview, but I don't think most people who know that video know her by name: she is simply considered as the family matriarch. In my opinion, Maha el-Samnah, Abdulkareem Khadr, and Zaynab Khadr should all be merged into Khadr family. --Saforrest (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO it would be best to structure Khadr family so it talked about what all the family members had in common, and then devoted limited coverage to each of the family members who are notable in and of themselves -- just enough to set the context. Most of the material specific to the notable individuals should be in their articles. Which of the family members aren't notable? IMO Maha Elsamnah's parents, her younger daughter, the son who died when a toddler and her grandchild aren't notable. Geo Swan (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I don't know why it wasn't in the article, but Maha el-Samnah, with her young children in tow, buttonholed Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien when he was on an official visit to Pakistan, in January 1996. She appealed to Chretien on behalf of her husband, who the Pakistanis had held, for months, in extrajudicial detention. Maha made the evening news here in Canada for several days in a row. Geo Swan (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Her actions get her in the news on multiple occasions over the years. She was featured in a documentary which got reviewed/commented on throughout the news media it seems, which by current Wikipedia standards makes it notable. Does being the head of a family like that count as royalty or something? How important is this? Dream Focus 08:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per significant coverage over several years. Seems notable to me. Failing that, a merge per Saforrest would make sense as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyvio of djsophialin.com/bio.html ("Copyright © 2011 DJ Sophia Lin. All Rights Reserved.") PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Lin[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD, but nothing has been done for about 2 weeks. A search revealed no significant coverage of this person at independent reliable sources, and I do not see that she meets the criteria for inclusion in general, let alone those for musicians. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looks like the whole article is a copyvio of her website at [1]. Angryapathy (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It is indeed a copyvio (and has been since it was created), and so I am deleting it as such. I am also closing this AfD now, as it is moot PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Holland[edit]

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

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

Can't find reliable secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this singer-songwriter and music producer, he appears to have slightly less coverage than the Arizona songwriter of the same name [2]. However, it's a common name, additional sources are as always, welcomed. A member of the 5-year-unreferenced-BLP club. joe decker^{talk to me} 22:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are multiple people in the music industry named "Eric Holland" making the search difficult. This compounded by the lack of specifics about his work. The assertion in the article is that his main claim to notability is as a producer. However, there is no indication that he has been noted for his production work, and it is unclear from the article in what capacity he actually did the work. The one specific item of writing and producing a hit single "Your Love Is Slippin' Away" is one that I cannot verify. I cannot verify that it was a bona fide charting single, and I cannot verify that he is the writer and producer of the song. -- Whpq (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Almost certain that "Your Love is Slippin' Away" was not a charting single, at least not in a sense that Wikipedia recognizes. There appear to have been releases on two record labels. However, a cursory search online reveals little, if any, chance that the band (The Flames), or either record label (Thrust or Masquerade) could meet notability guidelines. The odds that the single could have charted despite these circumstances are grim. Additionally, I find nothing to indicate that this individual attracted any media attention for whatever specific work he performed. Even fairly permissive searches in connection with the studios named in the article[3][4][5] come up with nothing. I don't have any reason to doubt that he was involved in album production in some technical capacity, but there's just nothing I can find to satisfy WP:N. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Regardless of the somewhat subjective "prominent representatives" criterion, the band satisfies the Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels" requirement. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk_stalk 04:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nokturnal Mortum[edit]

Nokturnal Mortum (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 band; information is sourced to obscure websites and online fanzines. Orange Mike | Talk 22:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. But actually: 1, 2, 3. Don't nominate an article just because its sourcing is crappy. Take the few seconds required to actually run a few searches. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply - on examination, most of those Google results, etc. are passing mentions of this band as one of the neo-nazi/pagan/satanic bands arising in modern post-Soviet Europe. They do not constitute the requisite substantial coverage. I don't consider the existence of an allmusic.com listing sufficient to meet WP:BAND. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" or "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels" be applicable here? --Львівське (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From Unheilige Allianzen, a German book used extensively as a source for the National Socialist black metal article: "Nokturnal Mortum sind sicherlich das prominenteste Beispiel des neonazistischen Underground in der Ukraine": Nokturnal Mortum are surely the most prominent example of the neo-Nazi underground in Ukraine. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • At some point, "most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene" can be taken too far. If this qualifies as "the most prominent example of the neo-Nazi underground in Ukraine", then the next step is "best-known 1970s proto-punk band in metropolitan Jackson, Tennessee" or "most prominent unsigned student band at CVR College of Engineering". --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson, Tennessee is a city. Ukraine is a country. (Also, they have a Rockabilly Hall of Fame in Jackson). (Also also I have no opinion on this AfD as I don't know much about this topic).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marek has an excellent point. Your own POV of the worthiness of the Ukrainian music scene aside, the quote I provided pretty much satisfies "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" from WP:NMUSIC. Furthermore, NM put out 4 albums (including re-releases) while signed to The End Records, a fairly prominent indie label, thus satisfying the NMUSIC "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels" criterion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep on the basis that their fairly comprehensive Allmusic biography is a reliable source that describes the band as "one of the first significant heavy metal bands to emerge out of the Ukraine following the fracture of the Soviet Union". Further reliable sources would, of course, strengthen the arguments for keeping, but I feel they just about scrape over the bar set at WP:BAND. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:MUSIC with multiple releases on notable labels, including The End Records and Nuclear Blast. The sourcing is appalling, but that is no reason to delete. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 15:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean McLaughlin (media activist & educator)[edit]

Sean McLaughlin (media activist & educator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nomination on behalf of Ellin Beltz (talk · contribs) in response to a request for assistance on my talk page. Rationale is as follows:

I find two deletion criteria (1) Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed & (2) Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth). For #1 all I can find about him is a series of interlocking webpages, for #2, I don't see anything in his biography which makes him a notable subject. The page reads like a LinkedIn or FaceBook profile, rather than an encyclopedia entry. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since there are no reliable sources cited it's hard to decide which notability criterion he fails, but it's clear he doesn't meet the "Professor test" Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria. Its also fairly clear that the article does not assert notability - the closest to doing this is the statement that he has served as an expert witness. That doesn't do it for me. We might wait awhile to see if any reliable sources show up, but a week's wait would be long enough for me. Smallbones (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I was going to !vote "weak delete" because I know a WRPI DJ, news media personality, and activist with this same name from Troy, New York, and I was afraid he made his own article. But no, this Sean Mclaughlin is even less notable than the one I know, and at least some of the Google hits you might find are for that other guy in Upstate New York. So I'm going to say delete this one as spam. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of independent sourcing. Maybe it's because his impact has been in small markets like Maui and Humboldt County, but Google News finds half a dozen other people named Sean McLaughlin who appear to be more notable than he is. Limiting the search by adding "Maui" or "Humboldt" finds only passing mentions of him in local media.--MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk_stalk 04:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rinkeby Swedish[edit]

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

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

Seriously, this is not a notable subject. Do we really need an article about how 15 year old immigrants in a small suburb in Sweden talk? KzKrann (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is, quite seriously, a notable subject. Ask Google Scholar about "Rinkeby Swedish" and you get just under 100 hits; "Rinkebysvenska" yields about 150 hits, and it's unlikely that most scholarly publications about Swedish linguistics would be found through G Scholar. This is a linguistic phenomenon that researchers in Scandinavian languages are pretty interested in; please note that the fact that the variety is named after a suburb of Stockholm does not mean that it's only spoken there. The unsourced list of terms which is not particularly interesting to English-speakers, and some other poorly sourced information, should be removed from the article but it should not be deleted. --bonadea contributions talk 17:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Is this a joke nomination or is it a way to express contempt for this language of low social status? From the Google translation of the first source (on the website of the Swedish Language Council): "Many Swedish young people who do not have Swedish as their mother tongue and have grown up in immigrant populations can speak a particular form of Swedish, which is characterized by many loan words from various immigrant languages ​​and also by a special intonation. It is known Rinkeby Swedish, Swedish Gårdsten, Rosengard Swedish or something else associated with specific locations. It is now so popular that even people with monolingual Swedish background sometimes try it." Then they recommend "[Swedish] multiethnic youth language" for scholarly use and "Shobresvenska" for common use. It's probably too early in the week to tell, but I have a feeling there might be snow in the air. Hans Adler 07:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - assume joke nomination.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found several sources just on a first sweep of Google Scholar, and added a couple. The article was badly under-referenced and still needs more refs., but it's obvious that there is substantial scholarly discussion, including work that is entirely about Rinkeby Swedish, and some of the sources refer to newspaper articles. So it is a demonstrably notable topic. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iota Beta Chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi[edit]

Iota Beta Chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Chapter of a fraternity. Has 15 members and was founded last year. No outside sources, not sufficiently notable. Shadowjams (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, chapters of a national fraternity do not have inherited notability, and there is no evidence from WP:RS of standalone notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:ORG, this chapter of a larger organisation has no significant coverage about it that would indicate why this particular chapter should have a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or Redirect to Alpha Epsilon Pi per usual practice for local chapters without individual notability. Probably no redirect justified in this case. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's not even a full-fledged chapter yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 23:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual project management[edit]

Virtual project management (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 seems to be a WP:NEO, or at best some company's attempt at legitiziming its catchphrase. I do not see any true, independant sources. Angryapathy (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete almost any sizable project involves off site personnel. I've been involved in PM for 25 years and have never heard of VPM. Greglocock (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, essay of original research as well as someone's newly coined TLA. The prose seems to be mostly dieseling: VPM has unique challenges. Since team members are often scattered in different locations around the world, they have different schedules, cultures and expectations. Managing a virtual team makes it difficult to micro manage which is a traditional concept in project management. Project Managers often need to manage people for whom they have no first-hand or personal experience with. Project members have to become acutely aware of their team member’s differences and somehow align them to work together. The entire team is dependent on technology to do its job in order for the project to be successful. Project Managers need tools tailored to the challenges of virtual project management. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toyo Family[edit]

Toyo Family (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 reliable sources are given and I'm unable to find any. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Me neither. There are no references in the article or on google. The article is bad written with unecylopedic language (we, us, and things like 'Till date, no one has ascended TOYO’s throne….who is next??'). In fact, I can't even figure out if this is fiction or real. The two contributors 147.197.174.70 and MORG-T have only created and edited this article. They seem awfully like the same person. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 11:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unreferenced genealogy with no indication as to why this family is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above arguments. Wickedjacob (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to British_Parachute_Association#BPA_Drop_Zones. and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skydive London[edit]

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

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

Company without any claim to notability. No refs, only link to company site selling skydiving jumps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmol (talk • contribs)

1. "Merge" - the information may be worth preserving in a related article or list of such places Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 11:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why would we merge this anywhere? What exactly do you believe is worth preserving and where would you suggest it be preserved? -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable source to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORP; I can't see the need for a list of skydiving centres either, that would be akin to having a list of paintball venues or karting centres. YSSYguy (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to British_Parachute_Association#BPA_Drop_Zones. The title may get used by some people as a search term, but this article doesn't saying anything apart from it being a drop zone. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep skydiving centers are as rare as amusement parks and common as schools both are considered of note and I think this place should be too as long as its sourced, which I say it is.Thisbites (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ypsilanti resale shop[edit]

Ypsilanti resale shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A local charity that's an adjunct of a school district. Only reference is local press releases from the organization. Not a notable organization. Shadowjams (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not appear to meet WP:ORG, all coverage appears to be local and incidental. Sourced content might be worth a few sentences at Ypsilanti Public School District. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but mention at the school district website. No redirect needed. --MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lynwood avenue elementry school[edit]

Lynwood avenue elementry school (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 elementary school; barely a stub. No evidence of standalone notability from WP:RS. Originally redirected to district; reverted by original editor, but assuming good faith so brought here for consensus. Would recommend redirect per WP:OUTCOMES, but casing is incorrect and "elementary" isn't even spelled correctly, so deletion seems warranted. Kinu ^t/_c 20:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - restore redirect to district. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Charles (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete Redirect to Sachem School District#Schools per common consensus that primary schools lacking in exceptional characteristics (such as a Blue Ribbon) aren't encyclopedic. tedder (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that the redirect is effectively useless because of the misspelled term in the title. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. tedder (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 23:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BSI Management Systems[edit]

BSI Management Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has been tagged as reading like an advertisement since 2007 and it remains unreferenced/unsourced.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 20:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, yet another consulting business, and unambiguous advertising. I would have speedily deleted this: ....a division of the BSI Group which works with organizations to assess the implementation and administration of their management systems and business processes. In order to ensure they have derived the most benefit from their management system an organization often decides to publicly prove that it meets the requirements by inviting a certification body like BSI Management Systems to assess and evaluate their implementation of the management system. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable self-promotion. Wickedjacob (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Lazar[edit]

Caroline Lazar (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 on a high school student who has won several minor writing awards but has not been the subject of coverage by even one reliable published source, much less multiple ones. Article clearly does not meet the thresholds of Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Notability (people). Prodded, but Prod tag removed because “author does not appear to have been informed.”[6] — Satori Son 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Lots of people have won high school writing awards (including me), but that doesn't make them article-worthy. Creating and subsequent work on this article (in 2009) were the sole contributions of Mcsweeneytodd (talk · contribs), a username which also suggests a possible conflict of interest since one of the contests Lazar won was the "McSweeney's Column Contest." (It might also be that the username incorporates the character Sweeney Todd, but that's not really important to this discussion.) --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The mere fact that she is 16 does not in itself satisfy WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find anything that meets any form of notability. Wickedjacob (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Le petit bonheur[edit]

Le petit bonheur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

To us French Canadians, "Le petit bonheur" is a song by Félix Leclerc and there should be an article on that song. However, this article is no more than a dicdef centered on a short discussion by Hannah Arendt, nothing that warrants an article. Most of the article is a quote. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm seeing millions of hits/uses, and it appears to be a 'life philosophy' of sorts like Simple living. Not sure it fits here exactly as written, but there may be a place for it. Withholding my !vote for now, have to ponder the idea if a section in Simple living and redirect is better, or leaving it alone. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I say a merge/redirect to Simple living would be the sensible thing to do. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Then with that, I would agree. If at a later time, enough citation and content would warrant breaking it off into a separate article, then it could be reviewed at that time. But there is enough to the expression to warrant, say, one or two paragraphs in the main article. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As as been noted, the article is hung on the quotation(s) from Arendt. However even there, it is such a passing discussion that it desn't even merit an entry in the book's Index. Not enough for an article. AllyD (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not knowing French, it is hard for me to tell the exact importance of this phrase. However, the google news results suggest there was an early 20th century play by this name, a book, hotels, and even a yacht. None of this proves notability, but as a whole it suggests that it is a well-established concept/phrase in the French language. Even if this article is not correct as it stands, it seems that there is *something* notable about this phrase. Wickedjacob (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is why the nom and I independently !voted to change from AFD to merge, which would allow time to develop the concept, and perhaps over time when appropriate sources could be found, then a separate article could be created. There is something to it, but not enough verification to justify a completely separate article now. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing more than a dicdef. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rivera[edit]

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

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

Really not much to say about this one, except that he is a non-notable, retired minor league baseball player. He last played in 2007, he spent only two years playing professionally, and though he reached AAA, he spent only 15 games there and performed poorly (overall he hit only .231). References are lacking. Alex (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet any of the critera of WP:BASEBALL/N, as it appears he has only played in the minors. Outside of that, no WP:RS to indicate notability per WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kinu. Does not meet any of the critera of WP:BASEBALL/N and no references available.--Whiteguru (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Non-notable baseball player. Does not pass WP:BASEBALL/N Overdrawn Invader (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not pass WP:BASEBALL/N Wickedjacob (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Trending towards keep on the basis of the references to extensive third party coverage now linked to in the article.  Sandstein  19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clevo x7200[edit]

Clevo x7200 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD, no rationale for removal of PROD nomination. Non-notable laptop, mostly promotional, no credible referenced assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a Web host for customer support. Wtshymanski (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: PROD deletion is x7200&action=historysubmit&diff=424695698&oldid=424695039 here.

• Delete There are a lot of laptops in the world. What makes this one stand out? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Granted, this is a consumer product. But how is it notable? Wikipedia is not a directory of every model of every consumer product ever sold. Wikipedia is not a mirror of every manufacturer's website. Edison (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Edison. Hm, one might almost say "Wikipedia is not a parts catalog." Jeh (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, but if you did, you'd touch off three solid weeks of drama. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JClausius.
  • This article started from research for a new laptop purchase. Having thoroughly researched other laptops on the market, I came to understand the unique characteristics of the x7200 laptop. It is not merely just another mobile computing device, but more of a "mobile desktop", and I could not find any other computers with similar characteristics. The goal is not to provide a "support site", "fan site", or other trivial data, but rather to inform and provide detailed information about this unique device. See my recent edits for unique characteristics.
  • In regards to the notability argument, hopefully I've been able to capture "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent" of the x7200 in the article. One can find a multitude of information in PC Gaming sites, Technology Review sites, Laptop enthusiast forums and the like. AnandTech, PC Magazine, Tom's Hardware, Computer Shopper, You Tube, etc. -Jclausius (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, you seem like a new editor. Welcome. Just so you know, Youtube is generally not considered as a 'notability provider'. The argument is that anyone can upload videos onto Youtube so notability (and reliability) is not guaranteed. See WP:SPS for more information. As for review sites, see my comment below. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 11:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - I added some more research regarding why no one knows about Clevo, the history of the x7200 predecessor (D900), as well as sources regarding the x7200 itself. It was a good excersise as I uncovered some cool facts (which I may have inferred in this discussion rather than referenced) in addition to shocking things like spending more than £10,000 on the x7200! In any case, it is in the discussion section of the main page. It's late here, so I'm off to bed. If you take a quick look, let me know if any thing there is on the right track and should be added to the main article for references, notability, etc. Thanks. Jclausius (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yeah, from the specs, it's just a really good laptop. It's not groundbreaking-ly innovative or something, nor is it the best-selling/most well known product. As for RS, I don't think review sites and things like that can provide notability (sure, they can provide the correct specs, but not notability). Review sites contain a lot of products, they don't all deserve an article. If that is the case, then everything on, say, Amazon, can have their own article. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree about innovation. Perhaps, I'm not making a strong enough case, and I'll update the article later today. How many laptops exist on the globe that allow the end user to use desktop CPUs inside a laptop? How many laptops are there which allow multiple graphics cards inside a laptop or up to four hard disk bays? What laptop vendor allows you to overclock the CPU and Video cards of their systems? Finally, what laptop manufacturer has designed a system in which the video cards, CPUs, and disk drives are end-user upgradeable? The Clevo based system is unique in this regard, and that is what I believe is notable about the system. - Jclausius (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know a bit about desktops but little about laptops. I will take your word for it. So it is a laptop with desktop features and I also take your word for the fact that it's new. But it is not notable. As I said, review sites-only does not usually provide notability. Because almost every big review site will review most if not every new laptop/desktop release by the big companies. Not all are notable. You saying that it is notable because it is amazing and stuff counts as WP:OR. You need some source other than review sites to say that it is notable. For example, say, when i7 was released, it was reported by many non-review-RS. e.g. The Guardian[7]. Find a similar RS and I (and likely the other Wikipedians) will change my mind. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 12:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look later today when I have some free time. I don't think it will necessarily be a review, but rather an article from a tech site, which should meet the RS criterion. For the most part, laptops have traditionally soldered graphics cards or CPUs directly on the laptop's system board. Clevo's innovation was to use normal desktop components which can be exchanged/upgraded without changing the system board. While the x7200 is not Clevo's first model to do this, it is the latest. Once I find the links, I'll update the page, and you can let me know what you think. Thx. 72.251.164.101 (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some links / references to the general discussion of the page. I didn't necessarily want to add it to the page as I'm a tad uncertain if it is up to snuff as RSs. If anyone wants to give them a look over, let me know if you feel this is on track, or still not viable RS citations. Thanks. - Jclausius (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that, although it might contain some RS regarding the 'desktop components in laptop' (need expert to check the websites), there are no RS to provide notability for this specific product. Linking 'desktop components in laptop is innovative' and 'this product does it' and say that it's notable is, I think, original research. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 22:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I did find references to "Sager laptops", but not necessarily to this model. There is so much crust around generic search results, that it was difficult to come up with anything in an hours time. I'm going to think about this, and refine some of my search queries to see if I can find anything related to Sager's innovation and continuing that within the x7200. Sounds like that is the RS you are looking for. Jclausius (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously sources talking about Sager laptops does not qualify. Also note that it has to have a significant role in whatever source you find (as opposed to just mentioning it briefly). Good luck. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 23:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of pluggable standard desktop-format expansion cards in a laptop goes back over twenty years, right back to ISA bus. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the pluggable cards for the Clevo, but rather upgradeable CPU/GPU. These used to be all part of one laptop system board. The advent of socket for CPU/GPU is what is new. Still haven't looked up a RS on this. Jclausius (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Web site which makes fewer of these claims; looking at the picture, if you can fit two standard desktop video boards, a standard desktop CPU board, and four hard drives into that box, a better model name would have been Tardis. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But for a laptop a police box is not the most comfortable thing to lug around -> although size is one of the knocks against the x7200. Jclausius (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not new. Several different series of Dell laptops (to my personal knowledge) have had sockets for the CPU and/or the GPU, and I doubt they were the only other ones. This beast is just the first one in your experience. And even if it was the first, that would just make it the first to have used one particular combination of selections out of the various options that face any designer. That in iteself doesn't make it notable, as there are a very large number of such combinations. Jeh (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The criterion for notability of products is not what the people here think of them, but whether they have reviews or other references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources. This does. There are cited in the article full reviews from PCMag and other good sources. I do not see that any of the delete !votes have discussed the fact that there is full sourcing for notability--except for Zlqq2144, who has the absurdly incorrect opinion that reviews are not sufficient sources for WP:N. We have used them for articles on products of all sorts, as well as media --What RSs can be better than the major review journals? It would be notable even if it were only the specialized journals, and there's at least one very well known general journal. I don't know what sort of sources he has been mind, but I don't see that an article in a newspaper would be of any more value. (I would do some rewriting--the detailed specs, after all, are in the reviews and the website & are in any case subject to change & customization) I hope JClausius doesn't kill the article with his praise of the high specs, which are relevant as an argument only as reflected by the reviews. We don't have to discuss why the review sources found it important enough for a full review, just that they did so find it. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use terms like "absurdly incorrect opinion." The process only works properly if everyone is civil. Calmly discuss the facts - what sources you have found and how well they meet the policy at WP:RS. Don't make personal comments about other editors. This is a search for evidence of notability, not a chatroom flamewar. Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Just about every laptop model or model series gets reviews, even the vast majority of the "me too" types... if only because, if a given magazine or site doesn't put up a review after receiving a review sample, they'll eventually stop getting review samples, and no one wants that! If you follow that criterion then every one of them becomes "notable" - which is plainly absurd. The standard for notability in such a prolific product category must be higher than that. For example, did the model set a prcedent that was followed by many others? (As opposed to being an idea in which no one else saw merit?) Otherwise we're just echoing manufacturers' catalogs. Is there some reason this model deserves an article of its own, and not just a section on the manufacturer's page? This page could remain as a redirect thereto. Jeh (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I think you are on the border of WP:PA there.

I do not frequently edit PC/Laptop related articles on Wikipedia, so please, give examples of articles where the product only appears in reviews. Reviews (from reliable sources) are great for providing detailed specs and I am fine with that. The problem is, as Jeh said above, that reviewers from specialised magazines/website review tens if not hundreds of new products everyday, ranging from specific models, to specific components. Not all of them deserve individual articles. This is not a catalog. Per WP:NOTCATALOG.

I will use my own graphics card 9600gt as an example. There are over 7 million results on google, including reviews from almost every reliable source and many more from unreliable sources. Look on Wikipedia, it is under the article GeForce 9 Series. No individual article. NP7280 (page moved to Clevo x7200), on the other hand, returns with under 200,000 results. Sure, google results does not mean everything, but I think you will agree that 9600gt (and many other PC/laptop models and components) are more notable than NP7280 (page moved to Clevo x7200). They do not have their individual articles.

Therefore, delete this article and merge it with Clevo or something. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 09:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- But what you searched on is important. Being a rebranded, vanilla laptop searching for "x7200" (368K results on Google) doesn't cover the other possible data hits from other vendor models (NP7280 (page moved to Clevo x7200) yields 183K results, Malibal NINE (less x7200) 13.6K, etc.). Although, those won't total 7M unique hits. Being a first time editor, I thought I would place this on a "Clevo" page, but there is no article for Clevo in Wikipedia. So, I chose the next familiar (at least to me) article... Sager. It was because of this I created the article NP7280 (page moved to Clevo x7200), which I now think is misnamed as it focuses more on the x7200 and little on NP7280 (page moved to Clevo x7200).

- Another issue regrading embedding the data is duplicated text. Being a rebranded laptop, including the same data points in every Wikipedia vendor's article would create a maintenance issue trying to keep all these in sync. To me there is enough data / notoriety that a stand-alone article is warranted. In this way, the article can be referenced in from different vendors for those interested in the laptop itself, but not necessarily Clevo. Jclausius (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clevo seems to be notable enough (6 million on google with many RS), consider creating that article instead? Maintenance should not be an issue since the laptop is unlikely to change. Also, there is no need to list out every single specification as it is doing now, IMO, just describe it in a few words/sentences in a main article (e.g. Sager and Clevo) and link it to a reliable review site which has all the specs. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 14:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize if this bullet is out of place, as I'm a new editor, and do not yet know proper protocol. I added an Update commment above in my "Keep" comment. Just placing this one here in case anyone w/ previous comments scrolled down and missed it. Thanks for your understanding.Jclausius (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Easily meets the WP:GNG based on significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Most of the delete arguments here are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thparkth (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Closing admin, please take a look at the article talk page. There appear to be arguments for and against deletion that are not duplicated here. Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Right now I am undecided. Here is what it would take to get me to vote "keep": In a comment above Jclausius says "How many laptops exist on the globe that allow the end user to use desktop CPUs inside a laptop? How many laptops are there which allow multiple graphics cards inside a laptop or up to four hard disk bays? What laptop vendor allows you to overclock the CPU and Video cards of their systems? Finally, what laptop manufacturer has designed a system in which the video cards, CPUs, and disk drives are end-user upgradeable? The Clevo based system is unique in this regard, and that is what I believe is notable about the system." If the above claims can be established as being true, the article should be edited to contain statements such as "...the only laptop that..." or "one of only two brands of laptop that..." with citations to reliable sources (see WP:RS) establishing that the claims are accurate. Reviews that do not establish notability might very well establish feature rarity and certainly can be used to establish feature existence. If someone establishes that this laptop has significant unique features, I would support keeping it based upon it being notable, and would expect at least some of the delete voters to reevaluate and possibly change their votes based upon new evidence. Guy Macon (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - I've found some RS specifically regarding these questions. Being a first time editor, I've asked Guy to help with this data, and he's graciously agreed to integrate this information into the article. Jclausius (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • - Just saw Guy cannot help. (See the article's discussion page.) He included the RS I had talked about. If anyone would like to help whip them into shape, please feel free. However, I may not be able get to it for a couple of days. Thanks. Jclausius (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry about not being able to help more, but I am stuck at a job site. I can snatch a few minutes here and there while waiting for the technicians to set up another test, but not enough time to do a proper job of it :( Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • NP. I have some early stuff that I'll be putting in my personal talk page in the next night or so. If you could give it a peer review once done, I'd be much obliged. Thanks. Jclausius (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you look at early laptops, every one of them used a desktop CPU, since laptop CPUs did not exist yet. Several of them had multiple graphics card, one to drive the onboard screen, and second to output to an external screen. Some transportable units (lunchbox or luggable) hence not laptops, allowed many harddrives (more than two). CPUs, HDDs, and videocards are upgradable on several laptops and other portables in the past. If you look at early mobile Radeons (not early laptop material, but "recent" stuff) several of them were user upgradable. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All good points, but those early models were not "upgradeable" by the end user as all pieces were soldered onto the system board. If you needed to change something, mostly this was handled by the vendor and parts were not necessarily "swappable" if an end user wanted to upgrade. Regardless, you are correct, as there wasn't a such thing as a "mobile" processor back in the early 1990s, and for the GPUs, this needs to highlight GPUs working in tandem using CrossFire or SLI architectures. Agreed, the wording of the article needs to be careful enough to highlight socket based CPU and tandem GPU architectures for these separate components.Jclausius (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to the Hardware Wikia. The article in its current state is a product information page, and not an encyclopedia article. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't know it existed. Now I do, yeah, it's a good idea. Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 14:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://computer.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page might be worth looking at. Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since ALL arguments for deletion so far amount to Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, which is an essay and thus not policy. WP:NOTCATALOG would apply if the only available information was a dull list of technical specifications and drivers; but this is not the case here. Per user:DGG the bar for inclusion is wp:notability, not wp:MILL. It requires significant coverage from third party reliable sources; if the only information was copies of press releases that wouldn't be enough as those are WP:SELFPUBLISHed. But as long as the laptop has been subject to critical review, that's enough to establish notability. Compare with Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. This article already has several sources including more than raw data, which include opinions by the reviewer.

So per WP:NOTPAPER, yes, every laptop that complies with these requirements can have its own article with the only precondition that someone is willing to write it (and that there's no consensus to merge its contents into a more encompassing article for a class of similar devices).

My suggestion is to trim to the minimum the technical tables (drivers, BIOS, utilities...) and create a Reception section with the most juicy bits of the professional reviews; taking both actions would achieve an encyclopedic article. Diego Moya (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The data in there is valuable information for whitebox system builders or those just now learning about the x7200. Is there perhaps some wiki markup to repackage this information (at least the more important parts) in a way that is less cumbersome? Jclausius (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a guide, so that's not enough reason to keep the lists. That said, I think that information could stay if compiled to less cumbersome tables. Try to remove the Date and Link columns, turn the links into references with <ref></ref> tags and place them outside the table, and group by Component type and Vendor. Diego Moya (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Diego Moya makes a compelling argument. So compelling, in fact, that anyone trying to determine consensus on this should pay careful attention not only to keep/delete comments, but the reasoning behind them. Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm currently trying to compile this argument into my first essay, since I think the run-of-the-mill argument for deletion is used more times that it should in AfDs. Does anybody around here have experience in writing essays? I'd appreciate feedback at my talk page. Diego Moya (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good idea for an essay. Sometime in the next few days (busy with work right now) I will review it in detail and possibly make suggestions. Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Diego and DGG, I think that this clearly meets the GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Several editors describe why this particular laptop is more powerful than the norm, but the real reason to keep it is that the article is well documented and meets wp:GNG.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it meets WP:GNG, but I would also note that it isn't just more powerful than the norm, but appears to actually have multiple features not available on any other laptop - which is why reliable sources have noted it. Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Sure the laptop is latest and greatest, and the article is referenced. But product reviews alone don't establish notability. Is it notable for high sales numbers? Is it notable for a lasting accomplishment or legacy? Within a month, the next latest and greatest computer will make this one just obsolete. See also: Notability is not temporary. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it that 'product reviews alone don't establish notability'? Nothing in wp:V nor wp:N support that opinion. A reliable, independent review site is as good source as any. The only guideline I've found against product reviews is at WP:DIRECTORY, but that's against sales catalogs (i.e. including product prices), not critical commentary. Also, Notability is not temporary works against your argument - if this item is notable per its significant coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't matter that it becomes obsolete later. Diego Moya (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk_stalk 04:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Caporusso[edit]

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

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

College hockey player who does not make the current notability standard per WP:NHOCKEY. Has not played in a fully professional league. Geofth (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets #4 at WP:NHOCKEY. He "achieved preeminent honors ... in a major collegiate hockey league" by being "named first-team AHCA/Reebok Division I Ice Hockey All-American." Makeemlighter (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Makeemlighter--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Makeemlighter. Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NHOCKEY. Patken4 (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Notable hockey player. All-Star in a major collegiate hockey league. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Any user who disagrees with this decision feel free to revert this NAC. As I see it however, there is a very clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk_stalk 02:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mihalis Safras[edit]

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

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

First Afd had no clear consensus. But this is still a poorly sourced WP:BLP that does not meet WP:NMG. bender235 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. From where I am sitting the first AfD has a very clear keep consensus (despite the Admin's call). There are a number of references for this techno musician/DJ on both English and Greek Google. He certainly is notable in his field. Article needs more work and more references. Moreover, I think it is bad form to relist this for AfD after the admin's poor call.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 17:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Putting an AFD up on an article that passed one less than a month ago says it all. No deletion here.... Are in need of some work but that can be fixed ofcourse.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It did not pass. It was no consensus. Shadowjams (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Stifle's "no consensus" call seems quite accurate to me, and there is nothing to stop a "no consensus" AfD being renominated in early course. There is no bad faith here. But having said that, I'm persuaded by this source, so I'd go with keep for this one.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak deleteKeep My opinion is still the same. I feel the sources are weak and don't establish notability. I'll admit to being borderline though and there might be a bit of personal bias since I just dont care for tech music ;)--v/r - TP 00:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it possible to weak delete somebody responsible for the music for Apple Inc.'s iPhone marketing campaign?  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 09:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there something notable about the marketing campaign or the genre of music the artist is apparently known for?--v/r - TP 13:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparently notable enough to be selected for use by Apple Inc. for an iPhone marketing campaign which is in itself notable.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's my question, is and how is the apple campaign notable? Is every artist picked to do a tune for an advertisement notable? Is there something unique about this campaign or tune that makes it notable?--v/r - TP 19:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, the Apple iPhone is one of the most popular hardware products ever invented by man. Isn't that notable enough. Being asked to provide the music for the advertisement of the product is a big deal.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 19:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You keep avoiding answering my question. You did this in the last AFD on this topic too. I am not asking about the IPod or anything else. I asked if there is anything notable about the advertising campaign and specifically that is attributed to the song? Anything else is WP:INHERITED. It is a huge stretch to say that the IPod is notable and therefore Mahalis Safras is notable. You're saying the IPad is notable, therefore the campaign is notable, therefore the music is notable, therefore the artist is notable. That is a lot of inheritance.--v/r - TP 18:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • An artist can be notable since his discography has been listed as one of the most impressive ones in the specific style. Therefore some companies like Apple and so on used some for their campaigns. Press and Mags have been listed that as well.
                • Safras is easily notable without the advertising campaign. But the ad campaign does not detract.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 08:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In agree with previous comment. Keep and notable offcourse..  Lenapapalenapapa  ^(Talk) 08:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. On the DJ pages of residentadvisor.net, the online music magazine, it is stated that there is:

"Not much to say about the Athenian DJ/producer and mastermind behind the Material Series. Mihalis Safras is considered to be one of the most high-profiled artists and the most productive techno producer on the planet.^[1]"  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 08:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

--LP- TP 15:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So it's generally accepted community consensus that an artist whose work is used in a major marketing campaign is considered notable?--v/r - TP 17:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to my last comment above.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 08:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would have been a lot easier to follow if you had replied chronologically. Alright, I'm convinced with this quote. I've adjusted my !vote.--v/r - TP 13:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate that. Thank you.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 13:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - All sources are valid and clear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenapapa (talk • contribs) 12:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Avvasi. Article has already been redirected so let's close it that way. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q-VUE[edit]

Q-VUE (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 software, new to market, no news or significant coverage by independent sources. Article has only primary references, no others found after searching. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See below. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep

• sources have been improved
• coverage from independent sources is out there, this has been reflected in sources
• software is certainly remarkable, level of detail to which it is addressed is another story. Though the company only divulges limited info, why shouldn't it be available to the public?
• neutrality of tone is a difficult point to argue considering the limited length of the article. The words used are not descriptive in nature and there are no statements (implied or otherwise) of superiority or advantage. RaphaelCapon (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The [8] reference amounts to little more than a compilation of press releases. It isn't an article on them. The other cite is a broken link to a video, which wouldn't matter as tmcnet.com isn't a reliable source, they just host videos for any business. The third is their own website. The article is still unreferenced by reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—Neither remarkableness nor market age is relevant to the notability status.—RJH (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually 'remarkable' is the same as 'notable' in the context of article deletion. That is why it is even used in the automated tools for CSD articles. Unremarkable is just another way of saying not notable, per accepted (and current) use in the English Wikipedia. Market age matters only in that you likely won't be finding sources in books or scholar, and perhaps none older than a week, which makes searching much easier. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• links have been updated
• As I continue sifting through more and more links and sources to validate this article, it is becoming increasingly clear that the product has indeed received enough attention to be considered notable/remarkableRaphaelCapon (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge with Avvasi As of the version I'm seeing [9] there are three references. Apparantly the same three Dennis Brown was talking about. One is company's own website. Two's WP:SPS. Three isn' abot Q-VUE specifically so notability is next to nil. Also, hasn't anyone noticed that this article contains four sentences? Merge it with Avvasi, for god's sake. Avvasi is not particularly long that it needs a split. Then redirect Q-VUE or something. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 14:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Zlqq2144 makes a point, will redirect to Avvasi — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaphaelCapon (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Admin Original creator of article has changed to a redirect to the main company. This is probably the best solution. That article needs some work but has a better chance of demonstrating notability. May close as moot, redirected by article creator. As nominator: Dennis Brown (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easton Cowboys FC[edit]

Easton Cowboys FC (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 amateur/parks league football team ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - team has not played at a high-enough level. GiantSnowman 17:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears to be an amateur-level team that does not have standalone notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable team. The league they play in isn't even a part of the English football league system. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A team in the Same league 'Sneyd Park AFC' have a wiki page so to delete it would not be fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braddaz88 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That page has already been deleted (well, turned into a redirect to the league's article, which kinda amounts to the same thing) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They are a higher standalone level than the lowest team in the Englsih Football League system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braddaz88 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't attempt to !vote more than once, if you wish to add further comments you may do so, but do not keep re-stating "keep" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable team. Kante4 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yantoultra Ngui Yichen[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was redirect to Maksim Mrvica. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk_stalk 02:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure II (Maksim Mrvica album)[edit]

Pure II (Maksim Mrvica album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This was recently PRODded by someone else due to notability concerns, but the person who created the article simply removed the PROD notice without improvement or discussion. A different editor suggested AfD so I'm doing it. Upon investigation I can find no mentions of this album beyond anemic blogs and download sites. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and others (Would say merge into Maksim Mrvica, but nothing referenced to merge). I see a lot of his albums that haven't charted and don't have wp:rs otherwise, should be put into this AFD as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Procedurally we'll have to just talk about this album for now, but I think merging all of this guy's several album articles to his main biography article would be a pretty good idea. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to artist "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." WPALBUMS. Wickedjacob (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With salt: Some support for salting, no opposition. Creation protection can be removed if an admin feels going forward that reliable sourcing has been found. joe decker^{talk to me} 15:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tourettes Guy (internet video series)[edit]

The Tourettes Guy (internet video series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previously deleted by AFD in 2006... long enough that CSD-G4 might not be appropriate. Of dubious notability, lack of third party references. IMDB establishes it exists, but little more than that. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete repeatedly recreated article that does not meet any of the notability criteria outlined at WP:WEB. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Lots o' ghits. Too bad none of them closely resemble reliable sources. Lots of chatter, but it is all blogs, forums, facebook and youtube users. Delete. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing. The notabillity hasn`t changed. Marking with CSD-G4.Speedy delete.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt per all above. It is too different to the last version of the salted 'The Tourettes Guy' title for G4, in my opinion. I won't raise objections if another admin disagrees with me on this... It's no improvement. Peridon (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree the article is too different for a G4 to apply. I am surprised there are not better references around for a topic so famous, however if the references are not improved I would support a delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The article has an IMDB page and so do both actors related to it. The show has an official website and one of the youtube videos has almost 20, 000, 000 views. The producer of the show also has an official website. IMO, these four points make it notable enough for a Wikipedia page. 30casesofpickles (talk) 21:48, 19th April 2011 (UTC)

30casesofpickles, could you clarify which of the WP:WEB criteria the web series meets? IMDB pages and "official websites" are user submitted and unrelated to notability. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT. Non notable web-series that doesn't meet WP:WEB. Dragquennom (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I second the comments of Graeme Bartlett. Seems very strange there has been no coverage of The Tourettes Guy anywhere. I wonder if there is anything in his local newspaper?--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I can't believe I can't find coverage of this guy, he's been around for a long time and I remember discussing him years ago. The article is also getting decent page views so far [10] (300+ page views daily). Well, if it gets deleted, I'm definitely reposting the content on my blog.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile / Cellular Phone Insurance in India[edit]

Mobile / Cellular Phone Insurance in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Spammy article possibly intended to promote some of the companies in the reflist. Much of the material is already adequately covered in Insurance and the rest is rather chaotic original research. Little or nothing of encyclopaedic value. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR andy (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject matter itself doesn't appear to be notable. One cite actually talking about the subject matter had more google ads than text, likely would fail wp:rs, the other is not independent of the subject matter. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - definitely promotional article lacking notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Cellular Phone Insurance itself appears to be interesting innovation. Keep in case if all company names will be removed from the article. – George Serdechny 20:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying it is useful? Dennis Brown (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you bet it's not? – George Serdechny 20:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no... I think you should read the useful link. It's ironic. And on a more mundane note there's nothing innovative about mobile phone insurance. Since pretty much anything can be insured nowadays we truly do not need a spammy, OR article about how one particular product is insured in one particular country, even if it's a good article - which it isn't. andy (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No such article is available and it is indeed useful. It is an encyclopedia. 120 crores is the population of India. One of the fastest growing general insurance market.Ashbinakaaks (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - May want to add a para on the topic in Insurance in India, an article on the same is not justified in my opinion. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. --CarTick (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Whilst there are some arguments for merging, the concensus seems to be that this should be done as reliable sources are located. Marasmusine (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of DJMax track listings[edit]

List of DJMax track listings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find video game sources: "List of DJMax track listings" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails WP:GNG and somewhat redundant, as it's a list of lists.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the tracklists to its respected articles i believe is the best choice.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per same reasoning that we wouldn't list cars from racing games, monsters from shooters, etc. No notability (no significant coverage of the track appearance in these video games). There are some VG RS, like [11], but those are just bare lists for fans. I'm not sure if these should be kept/merged with the main articles; I'd leave that decision to individual article editors. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There are only two active individual editors working with DJMAX articles and they are Mikitei (myself) and Bread Ninja. I've been hoping that we would get third editor with us to work with DJMAX articles so that these conflicts wouldn't have to happen all the time... (sigh)... There are sources for track lists, artists and composers and designers but mostly they are in Korean magazines and such. It takes time to do research and find sources for them. Time Bread Ninja doesn't want to give. Besides Bread Ninja doesn't work with these articles apart from doing bad copyediting. Please note that DJMAX tracks aren't just popular music with generic 3d graphics on a background like in Guitar Hero... Music (style being mostly experimental class) is composed only for these games and music videos for them are various forms of drawn visual art (which is also mostly experimental). It is notable article but also starter class type. It needs commentary and additions. --Mikitei (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As a reflection on comments above and below, I am unfamiliar with editing history related to the article, what were the reasons for merging/splitting, or any editor disagreements. I don't know whether this is the right venue/bad faith nomination or otherwise. My !vote was based on the article as it is. The point being, is WP:Notability guideline of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" satisfied? The article sources and search results suggest that it is not. (And I don't speak Korean to search local language sources.) So, as long as sources are not presented, my argument is "delete, because article fails WP:GNG." —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am satisfied with your answer. But I still hope people would start improving it. There are much more worthless articles in Wikipedia than this one. Also two editors improving this on occasional basis is not going to lead anywhere. --Mikitei (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - I strongly disagree cutting "Track lists" article into small shards of information. At beginning there was in every DJMAX articles a single list of the audiovisual tracks they had. Some had even the same unmaintained lists. Then some people merged it into a list of DJMAX Tracks lists. It was a clear improvement because now one page told information once and accurately rather than having 15 different copies of the same content. Non-updated lists where cleaned and everything started to look much better. But time went by and it was forgotten for two years. Then it was improved upon myself and others. Bread Ninja did some disruptive editing and I had to do a edit war with her to keep it together. After that Bread Ninja went silent for a few months. Now she came back here and started arguing about the same issues again and this time by wanting to merge everything back to articles. When I told her that I'll strongly disagree with her she obviously got angry and started this deletion request. I hope you guys can look for the personal issues involved and put this deletion on hold or at least make a good argument for it. I am not going to accept a result where Bread Ninja and her buddy agrees to delete it on a background in a silent deal. However I have no problems if there's a good majority supporting the deletion and they have at least some kind of arguments about why they think it should be deleted... I think that this is a bad move because it will not help these stub DJMAX articles to rise into a better class and would be lying to oneself about the quality of the DJMAX articles. Filling articles with long lists doesn't make them less stub than they are. What would make DJMAX articles less stub is that you, I and other editors write more actual content into those articles. Besides there's no need to have long lists on the article pages and that's the reason all the track lists where collected into a one single article which supports all of the DJMAX articles. If this page is now deleted, Bread Ninja will surely add all the track lists from that page into the articles. It will cause other people to merge them into a one single article and after that we will again be in this same situation. "Track lists" article has its meaning and purpose. All those lists are not needed in DJMAX articles because they are mostly supporting information (Just like the other lists in Wikipedia). Almost all other music games have a list article like this and I think that's enough of precedent to keep them together. If you start arguing this is not a significant list then what makes the other lists more significant than this one? For example why we have articles such as Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, List of songs in Rock Band, List of songs in Rock Band 2, List of songs in Guitar Hero, List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock, List of songs in Guitar Hero World Tour and it's perfectly fine that they exist if this list of DJMAX Tracks isn't allowed to exist? I demand that song lists of eg. Rock Band and Guitar Hero are also deleted if DJMAX track lists articles is voted to be deleted. It would be fair... --Mikitei (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure if "Bread Ninja and her buddy" is in reference to me, but, if so, I'll ask you to refrain from making any personal comments. I came her from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#List of DJMax track listings AfD, and my !vote is based on list's merits. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a general talk about the matter. It's also a scenario I've faced once with another person... I apologise if you felt it was somehow a personal comment. I didn't mean it that way... I've been trying to improve DJMAX articles lately and Bread Ninja is doing more harm than good. It has lead to big tiring debates about even the simplest matters. I've done more than enough trying to cooperate with her on these matters. For example read DJMAX matters from my talk page or User Talk:Jinnai's talk page. Also it's worth reading the talk pages from DJMAX articles. Main thing here is that Bread Ninja came to ask me about considering the splitting the article. I considered few minutes and replied "No + reason" and then I tried to prevent it becoming one of those big fights by writing "my decision is final". So she then started this deletion process as a answer to that. While I am OK if the article is deleted. I still don't want unreferenced material into articles just for the sake of filling them. Why do they even need the track lists? --Mikitei (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I have no idea why they would need to be included unless there is some significance; same way its kind of pointless to non-fans to list cars from racing games, monsters fr... etc. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to add that shouldn't this be debate about merging the article into other DJMAX articles rather than conversation about deleting it? Bread Ninja obviously wants to merge it and not delete it. I am pretty sure Bread Ninja didn't know about the proper merging policy ( Wikipedia:Merging ) and has made a mistake. I wouldn't be surprised about that. Also please take a look at the article in question before stating your opinion. Thank you! --Mikitei (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually, delete or keep, which ever one is the best choice. For me, it's merge. for everyone else, let them decide. Bread Ninja (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To me it seems that Bread Ninja is extorting editors of the list so that she can add the song lists into those articles against their wishes. Otherwise I'm going to stay out of this debate. --193.166.71.86 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion, we can state whatever we want is best for the article, merge, redirect, delete, or keep. but back on topic:

Out of all the music games i have yet to see a list of lists. lists shouldn't be redundant. for example, even though this article is in danger of getting nominated for deletion as well, List of Dance Dance Revolution songs doesn't repeat the songs because it's a list of all the songs that were introduced in dance dance revolution series (this however doesn't have any sources and could be deleted). However do not list the track listing that each game has. Another example is List of songs in Guitar Hero that reached notability but not only that but it is far too much information as the article is featured and getting around 60 KB of info. However, none of the DJMax articles are even close to get to that. Not only that but there's a collapse template to hide it so that can always save visual space. Problem is, we can't just make articles like this despite not being notable.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should improve this track list article to be like that List of Dance Dance Revolution songs. I already had something like that in my mind and wrote about that to you already. --Mikitei (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. here's the thing. the list isn't an independent list-article. It's dependent on the main articles about the video games. So, if the main articles are not notable than the article can't stay regardless of notability. Why would we do this? because the list article is supporting material for the main article. IF the main article isn't notable, than the information could be merged so it would gain some-notability if not to a significant degree to not delete it (not saying I will delete it).

As for list of Dance Dance Revolution songs. i'm not even sure that one "could" be notable, as it just compiles all the songs that were released. Seems like original research supported by information that doesn't exactly reflect the article if it were to assume notability.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: So practically this leads to only one thing. I don't want these lists into those DJMAX articles. You, Bread Ninja, don't want this list of lists article (which I can understand to some degree). We have two options. Either we make separate article pages (one for each list) or remove all these lists. First option still doesn't solve the problem that we don't have reliable way to source all this material using English language sources. Any kind of merge operation isn't going to solve that one. Consider that if decision to delete this article is made based on missing sources. --Mikitei (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we have song lists for GH, RB, and the other music games is that these are notable and widely recognized songs by recognized artists; there have been references that show songs featured in such games get additional sales boosts from inclusion, so its more than just useful. In this specific list, I'm not seeing many blue links and suspect there can't be many made. This doesn't invalidate the list of tracks, but judging by the size of the individual game articles, there's no need for a separate list. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From this point on, let's not use WP:OTHERCRAP. It always backfires because the comparisons are never exact.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete (either way, not keep). Simply does not have a strong assertion of notability to have an article like the Rock Band or Guitar Hero lists. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong strong (heh, I went there!): No, either delete or merge to individual articles. I could not find independent reliable sources that would satisfy the general notability criteria – leaning towards delete since the game articles also look pretty obscure and non-notable. Prime Blue (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes I've also been looking for a while and couldn't find much that could be considered reliable sources. I hope the accusation of me not attempting to find sources is dropped with this. For the most part, i think it depends on how much potential the article has. If there's no sign of ever gaining any citation, than delete, if it has "some" citation and somehow notable on its own (depending if the main articles have enough support to stand on its own) than merge due to the main articles not having much. But the only way to keep this article is if somehow the main articles were notable up to at least start and over 60 KB (per WP:SPLIT) which i highly doubt will happen anytime soon.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You can find sources to these tracks on Japanese and Korean websites if you know where to look. Problem with those is that they are mostly improper blogs and wiki-like sites for gamers. To my knowledge Pentavision who develops DJMAX series has never released "officially" a list of all included songs when they have released new title. However they have websites about these games and some list more or less songs from the game. For example Black Square website lists 35 tracks from the game and gives audio and visual art samples on each song too. Just for the sake of example the website for first DJMAX Portable lists all 54 songs from the game (with audio and visual art samples on all of them). Just because Bread Ninja doesn't find sources it doesn't mean these lists cannot be sourced. The main problem is that finding proper English language sources is probably impossible due the fact that none of these games have never been released outside Korea/Japan/China-axis apart from Fever and Portable 3 which PlayMaker Studios published in Northern America... One way to source these lists is using game manuals. Some of the DJMAX games have a manual which lists all the tracks the game has. But those aren't probably proper sources... Most of these lists can be sourced properly, probably. I don't know if everything can be sourced. That would require a team effort from everybody in this thread to find out if it is possible. --Mikitei (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not really helping yourself in this situation. And like i said before, if the article does sustain notability, there's still the problem of the main video game articles not being notable. the main video games would have to be notable (and over 60 KB at least) in order to keep this as a support list article.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:I think you're wrong about that. That comment was merely a additional remark to your comment which stated that you couldn't find reliable sources. I refuted that by writing that there are sources in non-English websites. You're also forgetting that these articles are still in development stages. And this is notable game series in Korea among music games. I think I wrote about this before but I think you're not constructive enought. :) --Mikitei (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Somewhat per Hippie but I think that the article should instead be deleted since the information would seem to be unnecessary for the articles it would be part of. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards delete: The list is in pretty bad shape sourcing-wise, and the duplication of the content is discouraged per Wikipedia:Content forking. The fact that other such lists exist only mean that a model is available to follow, not that other such lists can exist without proper sourcing. I understand that there is a reason that the lists shouldn't be in the separate game articles, but a separate list still needs to follow our notability and sourcing guidelines.
  I didn't do a search of sources, so I'll gladly change my tune if proper sourcing is found. But right now, I did not see enough sources presented in the article or this AfD. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment Seems there is a consensus for delete. Should we close this argument or wait a couple more days?Bread Ninja (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Let's wait few more days to get full two weeks on this. I wish that because DJMAX articles are slow to get updates. Only I and you, Bread Ninja, have been active on them lately. It would be fair to give slower article a longer time. --Mikitei (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I can't think of an appropriate Borat joke, sadly.  Sandstein  19:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan Student Society in the United Kingdom[edit]

Kazakhstan Student Society in the United Kingdom (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 reads like an advertisement and does not appear to meet the guidelines of WP:ORG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a lack of reliable sources on the subject matter in English, that is for sure. I searched, including removing "in the United Kingdom" (all the results still had that in the body) but only found facebook, forums, etc. Might need input from some people who speak Kazakh before making a final determination, however. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here is the Facebook link for the society http://www.facebook.com/kazsociety?sk=wall&filter=2

there is more information on the Companies house website about the society. its a non-profit organisation uniting kazakhs in the UK. Will include this link in the reference.

News and photo report from events:

http://www.khabar.kz/rus/culture/Prazdnik_Nauriz_otmechajut_v_Velikobritanii.html http://astana.nightout.ru/photoreportlight/8523 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ereke (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC) — Ereke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note that I have had to remove almost the entire article as a copyvio as it just replicated material from the organisation's copyrighted web site. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The material used upon authorization of the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ereke (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't just say it is used with permission, there is a process, otherwise it is deleted. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentWhat is the process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.56.65 (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatantly fails WP:ORG. Facebook page hardly advances notability (in fact it doesn't). conflict of issue concerns with article creator. LibStar (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 15:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Hernandez (composer)[edit]

Angel Hernandez (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability of this unsourced BLP. The commonness of this name makes it difficult but searched combing the name with composer and orchestra without success, likely a vanity piece. J04n(talk page) 13:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC) J04n(talk page) 13:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried searching "Angel Hernandez" composer in Gbooks/news/web. Nothing that relates to him in reliable sources, and not much in unreliable sources. Might be because he is so young and hasn't done anything notable yet. Delete would be the best option here. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yep, not notable at least for now. Per above. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 14:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 15:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

33 (game)[edit]

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

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

Howto for a game with no indication of notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day and (due to the unlikely name – what does this game have to do with the number 33???) as a likely hoax. The link to pagat.com makes no sense, as that site does not discuss a game of that name. Nor could I find any related there on the pages that mention the number. Same thing on the web: nothing.
  Games are a problem in that they should have some form of inherent notability once they are sufficiently widespread, but unlike dialects and unwritten languages, which not too many decades ago had the same problem, are still severely under-researched. I would be more inclined to give this game the benefit of the doubt if the rules were explained comprehensibly and these rules were plausible as something played by lots of people. That's not the case here. Hans Adler 06:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the pagat link has been removed. I am fairly confident that this was WP:MADEUP the complexity of the game combined with the luck factor does not seem natural. The hand order seems artificial and doesn't reflect the probabilities. I doubt that this has ever been a notable card game and without sources should be deleted.Tetron76 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete assuming good faith, the article doesn't do anything more than explain the rules. There is no assertion of notability, just rules to the game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 18:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HWIOS[edit]

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

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

A software project that is under development. No indication of the software being in active use; no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

• Delete. Yet more "customer relations management" software (aiming to make CMS software behave more like regular networking applications.). This one contains a "vision" heading containg promotional language that discusses what they eventually hope to achieve: The mid-term focus of HWIOS is to refactor the software to stable production-quality, and to allow a module ecosystem to thrive. HWIOS aspires to be a next-generation CMS for e-learning and e-work, by allowing presence-aware web-applications to be developed in a flexible and clean web-framework. E-learning and e-work include sharing of knowledge based on documents, drawings, voice and video, as well as experience-based learning methods found in virtual environments. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When the article BEGINS by telling you who is financing it, it makes it difficult to read the rest....but it is still not notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the above. The creator of the article is only involved in this article. Seems to be promoting a product. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 14:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Public interest, but insignificant (yet). This was my first wikipedia article ever, so please forgive me the initial pitfalls. I removed/replaced all text that could be interpreted as promotional/sponsor orientated. The R&D project itself is BSD-licensed on Contributors copyright and open source for the public, so it could be of potential interest to the public, and is not driven solely by personal/commercial interests. Instead of narrowing or deleting the already exotic subject, i could make a 'Websocket CMS' article, describing the technique of applying websockets to CMS design. The HWIOS article could then be used as reference material, because it's the first and only known websocket CMS atm afaik. — Preceding unsignedcomment added by Phrearch (talk • contribs) 09:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's look at the references.
  • 1st one [12] does not talk about HWIOS.
  • 2nd one [13] not RS. Seems to be a website with updates from the creator of jinfinote, which is not notable itself.
  • 3rd one [14] seems to be created by Phrearch, that's SPS. Ignoring that, it's not RS.
  • 4th one [15] does not mention HWIOS
  • Since, apparantly, Phrearch is involved in this project, this may be considered as promotional? Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 10:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, you said yourself that it's 'insignificant'. The 'yet' part does not matter, since wikipedia is not a crystalball. Similarly, 'potential interest' does not grant notability. Also, I advise you to read the general notability guidelines. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 10:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too much of this promotional stuff coming in - bin it Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 10:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed. I'll stick to the usual blogs instead :) I haven't read anything about the websocket CMS suggestion though. This is imo notable enough, since it changes basically every aspect of today's cms software(from http-based to persistant websocket connections). I'll be happy to start an article about that, or does that need to be mainstream info as well? Currently there are no references on the websocket cms subject on the net, except from this particular project. I know it has somewhat of a crystalball feel to it because of that, but this is what the article about websocket CMS would be useful for; to describe the benefits from moving from http to websockets in general. The HWIOS project is just the first example of applying this html5 technique to CMS software, and therefor has at least some significance in that perspective imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phrearch (talk • contribs) 11:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That needs 'mainstream' info as well. All wikipedia articles do. 'Currently there are no references on the websocket cms subject on the net, except from this particular project.' There you go. If it's true (I haven't checked), then it fails WP:N. Saying it will be notable in the future is the exact definition of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Come back when it is notable. However, we do seem to have a CMS article, though I am not knowledgable in that subject so I don't know if it is what you want. Content management system. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 12:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Zlqq2144 - I fear you would be wasting your time creating a Wikipedia article about websocket CMS, because that too would not be notable. One slight caveat with Zlqq2144's comments is that just because there are no references on the net doesn't mean something's not notable - if there are reliable published sources that are dead trees then that's just fine for notability. However, of course for software under development, lack of net coverage means there's probably no offline coverage either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 18:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Finch Effect[edit]

The Finch Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can find no relevant GHits for "Finch effect" or "Steven J Finch", and no hits at all when I add "nutmeg" to the search terms, so it appears to be at best non-notable and possibly a hoax -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nutmeg toxicity is a real thing, and it's adequately covered in Nutmeg. Kate (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, nutmeg toxicity is real, but the "Finch" stuff doesn't appear to be -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, agreed. Kate (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cannot confirm that the term finds any use. The only news hit for "Finch effect" applied the term to the sale of Irish harps! Google Books finds only split sentences, as in "CA Finch: Effect of...." --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 15:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spouses of the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom[edit]

Spouses of the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about a non-position that carries no weight or officiality at all, which is even admitted to in the article. Has been tagged for notability since August 2010. role^player 11:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I honestly can't tell if this is a joke article or not. The topic has no notability asserted, as the nom said.Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unofficial title of an unofficial position that has no official role? While the person holding this "position" may well satisfy WP:GNG, the "position" itself is inherently non-notable as it doesn't really exist. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article makes a good job of justifying its deletion, but I would go further. 'Spouse' is not a title or position in the sense that it would usually be understood in Wikipedia. It is merely a relationship, as is mother, father, son, daughter, etc, and of course the holder of the political position may be in a legal partnership, live with somebody with whom they have no legal relationship, be sexually promiscuous, etc. Notability is not inherited and in some cases the person concerned may warrant a mention in the entry for the politician in question - see eg the entry for Ed Milliband, the current Leader of the Opposition. --AJHingston (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the above. No reference. Not notable. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 14:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a title or a position, unofficial or otherwise, as stated in the article, but simply a description. So what? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:RS --Reference Desker (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker^{talk to me} 15:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elukanah Nkugwa[edit]

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

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

Just removed a BLP PROD tag, as it does have a reference. That being said, does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL as the league he plays in, the Ugandan Super League, is not fully professional and he hasn't played a match for the senior national team. Therefore the question becomes does he meet WP:GNG? I had a hunt for sources and couldn't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so he doesn't meet the GNG in my opinion. At 16 years of age, he may very well be notable in the future, but I don't think he is at the moment. Jenks24 (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: For anyone looking for sources, he also seems to be know under the name "Elukana Nkugwa". Jenks24 (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 23:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 23:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Without significant coverage, he fails WP:GNG, and he has not played in a fully pro league or internationally, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. It's quite obvious that no consensus on what to do is going to be reached here. I would encourage all participants to continue discussing this matter with a view to coming up with a mutually agreeable solution on what to do with articles like this one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Colchester[edit]

List of bus routes in Colchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Non-Notable subject fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline, Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information amongst others. A recent RFC on the subject did not close but had a majority of users requiring that these subjects meet the General Notability Guidelines, Wikiproject Busses has over the years had several guidelines on this subject - The Bus route List guide - suggested lists of routes should only exist where "the bus routes in an area descended from streetcars, a list is appropriate, and if the system did not exist at all until the 1990s, it is probably not. In between those extremes, use your own judgment." The sources provided do not establish any history let alone a notable one reaching back to Tram Cars. Geographic clear-up guidelines from the project as part of the UK bus route quality drive suggest that routes are notable when they have Significant History or are Major arterial routes. If these routes exist then there may be notability grounds for having a list of routes that are notable in their own right, but not one of indiscriminate non-notable routes. None of the sources in the article are independent and certainly don't establish any of the routes as notable through history or importance. If the bus operators are notable then route information could be merged into those articles where it would be relevant but it does not support listing independent of that. Whilst other articles still currently exist covering similar material Other stuff exists is not grounds for keeping this particular article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page is not finished yet. I took a break for a couple days, but will continue. How about you wait until I finished and make it more notable, huh? The system was definetly set up before the 1990s, but unfortunately there are no sources of its history. Please wait with the deletion. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You sum it up when you say "there are no sources of its history" there are no sources about the routes other than bus timetables thus it fails every yardstick of notability that we use. As for the reasoning that you were on "a break" none of your other bus route list articles meet our notability guidelines so I see no past history that suggests you will get this one up to any standard where it would be acceptable to keep. Not only that if this AfD were to close on Delete I would recommend a bulk nomination of all your other non-notable route lists. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least I tried to polite, unlike your fairly rude reply. I am still trying to make the page good. Some of my other pages were nominated for deletion and survived. It is unfair to delete pages that are not completed. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel I am impolite then there are forums where you can discuss my behaviour such as WP:WQA, However I see my response as blunt but not in anyway offensive. The saving of your previous pages was on the basis that closing Admin was unsure of the weight of the argument that Bus Routes were automatically notable and did not have to comply with the General notability Guideline - On at least one close it was suggested that a central discussion needed to take place to discuss the matter. That central discussion took place at the policy village pump and the majority agreed that notability was a requirement for keeping. If those articles go to AfD again, I do not see them surviving in the basis of of that discussion. The completeness of the argument is irrelevant if the subject is not in any way notable - it is not going to become notable no matter how much work any editor puts into it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leaning towards weak keep. Keep. If Wikipedia was just an encyclopaedia I think I would agree with Stuart.Jamieson. But we're more than just an encyclopaedia. Per WP:5P we're also a gazetteer, and this is information of the kind that belongs in a gazetteer.

  I've always understood that the way this "gazetteer" function interacts with the GNG is that for a gazetteer-type article (e.g. lists of bus stops or rail stations, articles on local villages, etc.), something like a local map would be considered a secondary source if it was prepared by someone other than the service provider.

  I'm a bit taken aback by the apparent degree of hostility expressed in Stuart.Jamieson's most recent contribution to this debate, and I wonder whether that was strictly necessary.

  Finally, whatever the verdict here, Adam mugliston's good faith request for more time to work on the article should be respected and therefore, even if there's a consensus to delete at this discussion, the material should be incubated so that the work can continue.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support, S Marshall. Really appreciated, and I am pleased somebody understands that the page should be finished first. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshal, I don't have an issue with gazetteer information such as Bus Stations or Park and Ride systems or even actually notable bus routes, but many non main/non historic Bus routes are transient. One of Adam's proposed future articles (based on his user pages) is Bus routes in Edinburgh - From personal experience I know that the route information for Edinburgh has changed completely at least twice in the past 13 years and is due to change substantially again once the Tram routes are complete. This is the similar for the majority of Central Scotland - some bus enthusiasts will argue that they are static but we really need reliable secondary sources to ensure that these routes are actually notable and not changing every couple of weeks (as the Edinburgh ones have during substantial tramwork/Gas main renewal works over the past 5 years. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Stuart.Jamieson, you seem to be saying that the fact that the details change frequently detracts from the notability of the subject. Is that right?—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To the contrary, We regularly have articles on things that change frequently but we use reliable secondary sources to discuss the changes in a historical context within the article. I think that because these routes are not notable, they are not covered by reliable secondary sources - Without those sources these articles are constructed with primary sources which are often in themselves transient and the article because of this these articles slide to original research, recentism, or both. If these routes are notable as a collection, they should be discussed in a prose article where changes should be documented by reliable sources in a historical context - An article should not have entries (or the whole article) re-written just because those routes no longer exist in the latest version of the operators timetable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but then a History section could be made using the previous resources, while the new routes placed into the current section.'''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which simply adds to the list of indiscriminate information rather than contextualising it, and does nothing to help the notability problems. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the substantive issue at this AfD so far is whether, in a gazetteer-type article such as this, a map is a secondary source. Stuart.Jamieson's position appears to be that a map is not a secondary source, whereas my position is that it may be, if the map is published by someone independent of the bus service provider and has editorial oversight. So if you agree with the S Marshall view, then (for example) something like an Ordnance Survey map would be a reliable source.

  The S Marshall view doesn't mean that every individual bus stop deserves its own article, because there isn't enough to say and the OS Map doesn't give each stop "significant coverage". It does imply that the more important routes would merit a mention in a list article.—S Marshall T/C 14:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A map is a primary source, and even if it was to be considered a secondary source a bus route mention on it is purely trivial - it establishes no notability about the route or route system. Taking such a stance means that I could in theory create a list of every footpath running through my local golf course because they are mapped as routes and some are even listed in independent walking guides - of course this argument is obviously false because both the map and the walking guide make only trivial mentions of those footpaths. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• S Marshall, do you think a map made by Colchester Borough Council would be a good secondary source? '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Contrary to Stuart.Jamieson's position, my position is that a map is a primary source if prepared by the service provider, but can be used as a secondary source if prepared by someone independent. This means that in my opinion a map made by CBC would be a good secondary source, but the italicised phrase is important: you can use a map as a source in your article for the moment, but a consensus might arise in this discussion preventing it.

  I'd respond to the other limb of Stuart.Jamieson's post by saying the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy (specifically a kind of informal fallacy). I'm not advocating creating a list of footpaths on a local golf course, I'm advocating allowing a list of bus routes in the city of Colchester.—S Marshall T/C 16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the RFC on the subject Mick MacNee stated the following " In the rest of the UK, the design of the route is fixed for the term of the registration - penalties are imposed for not sticking to it in full, or simply withdrawing it" If true then CBC is not independent as it works with the providers in designing the routes, making changes to the design where required due to road closures, and ensuring the provider sticks to the routes. As such it is not independent of that process and materials it produces in relation to the route system are not either. That aside either as a primary or secondary source a Map does not assert any notability; it's only assertion is that of existence which is the point I raise with footpaths - Just because something (anything) appears on a map does not make it notable though it can be used to supplement other reliable sources which do assert notability. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Many (most) routes are operated independently from the Council. Why don't you suggest (not a link to a guide, please) a reference will would be good in your opinion. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already have; please see my most recent post at Talk:List of bus routes in Colchester#Overcoloured. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Operation of the route is different from Design of the route, and it's essential that the council has a say in route design to avoid inconveniencing local residents or risking damage to local services, as such it can't be independent when it discusses the design of the route (or creates a map). To be honest I don't see any sources that would save this article in it's current form - Local history groups are often good for instance if you can combine the material of something like this with other local history sources (preferably not ending in 1997 like that one but coming up to the present day) then you could create a new prose article something like Buses in Colchester but I don't see pure lists of just the current routes as encyclopaedic. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added some new references from the local newspaper. I have a quote from the Council: Once buses have left the bus station it's up to the operators how they run their routes." To prove this see: ^[2]

• If you're choosing to argue that the operator can change the route any way they want, then you're arguing that the routes are even more transient and notability of those routes is even less convincing. However, I think you're misreading the source; running the route is different from designing the route as I have said several times now. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that the operator can change the route, what I am saying is that your opinion that a map by the council is not a valid secondary source is incorrect. Although you may think that several changes in routes make the article less notable, I think it gives the article potential for being even better and more notable, as then it is possible to provide a detailed history, which is always a good thing, which makes an article more notable. Also, although (theoretically) operators, or at least commercial ones, are allowed to change routes they do not unless very necessary. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure how you think it proves me wrong unless you don't appreciate the difference between how the route is planned (with the involvement of the CBC) which is the geographical element that you are citing maps to claim notability, and how the route is run (which is decided solely by the operator) which is the scheduling element and can be sourced to timetables. When you talk about history here you are suggesting what wikipedia terms original research as you are suggesting assembling a history from old timetables and maps rather than reporting a history already recorded in a reliable source. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• CBC does not design the routes, select the contractors, or provide the subsidy for those routes that are subsidised. These functions will be performed by Essex County Council's Passenger Transport Unit. Colchester Borough Council's publications are secondary sources accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that is correct. If you look for timetables on the CBC page, you get redirected to Essex County Council.'''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Documents such as [16] suggest that such decisions are made jointly with CBC and ECC and other organisations/bodies so without further information the map cannot be considered independent. What's worse is the maps are produced by FWT and could be produced for ECC, CBC, UK Gov or for one of the operators and simply reused by CBC with no means of us knowing. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The way local authority passenger transport units work is that they are administered at County level, and decisions are made at County level. Obviously the County needs to work closely with the Borough in many things, so as a matter of routine courtesy the County will consult the Borough and relevant usergroups before its decision is finalised. But the fact that the Borough is consulted doesn't mean it makes the decision. That's a County matter. My position remains that Borough is a secondary source.

  With the map, even if I accepted that CBC would use someone else's copyright without acknowledgement—which for the avoidance of doubt I do not—surely what's relevant is not who drew it, but who publishes it.—S Marshall T/C 21:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

• I am very experienced with public transport, as it has been my hobby for at least 9 years now. I know that the ECC decides everything about the routes. The Borough Council is only informed about them, they do not set the routes. The map is independent of anyone/thing, although its looks are based on the map by First, which do not have anything to do with the CBC's map. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's a perfectly valid list of routes of a major bus system in a major city. Bus routes are integral parts of the workings of a city and that is very encyclopedic. I see "WP is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information" quotes frequently in bus route nominations but there is actually nothing in WP:NOT or its WP:IINFO and WP:DIRECTORY that bans list articles, nor list articles of bus routes. This list is discriminate and isn't a " repositories of loosely associated topics " or anything of the like. I also notice the nom and the pack of delete voters are simply stating lists of bus routes are unencyclopedic in general and not making a case to delete this list article of this specific city's bus routes, yet they haven't touched the List of bus routes in London List of bus routes in Manhattan or the like which one would imagine are much more colossal violations of encyclopedic content to those who don't like bust list articles. Like with the Peterborough bus routes AfD (it was kept), this looks like some kind of WP:POINT test case on a small market.--Oakshade (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both the London and Manhattan lists are built around reliable sources; London around articles in the Guardian as well as bus histories of the system, and Manhattan around articles in the New York Times as well as bus histories of the system. They do not excuse the existence of this or any other list soley sourced to primary documents and trivial mentions. Peterborough closed as No Consensus along with other routes where the closing admin asked for a central discussion on whether lists of bus routes were automatically notable (as was the main keep point at the AfD) or whether it had to be established via the general notability guidelines - That request for comment took place and is linked above and found that route lists had to have notability established by reliable secondary sources. This is the first Afd since then and occurs on an article where notability and OR tags have been previously removed without the issues being resolved - but since AfD does require a test case before a bulk nomination it can be seen as that if you wish. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet still, Lists of bus routes should not be historical,they are lists of what is running now not 20 years ago. That could be a seperate article or the list with its name changed to 'Buses in ...' with a current and history section. Colchester is as notable as London, after all they do claim do be the oldest recorded town in Britain. And your agrument of no secondary sources in invalid currently, as I provided valid secondary source for some things and am still searching. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You added a source which trivially mentions 6 routes it doesn't even identify those routes as notable let alone the 40-50 other routes it doesn't mention. Wikipedia is not a Bus Timetable, or Travel guide - it does not simply list the current state of a subject but has to put that state into an encyclopaedic context. These lists can have a place within a prose article (or a keep argument could be made as a spinout from a prose article) but they are not notable enough to stand alone. Finally your claim that Colchester (a town probably not known outside the UK) is as notable as London (a city which can be identified worldwide) is as flawed as it is irrelevant. What matters for this article is the depth and breadth of coverage of each place's bus routes in reliable secondary sources - London has a wealth of these; Colchester will have at most 1 perhaps 2. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you actually even read the article! There is no timetale there, all there is is the frequency and in one case first and last bus times. That is not a timetable. The definition of that is - A public transport timetable is a listing of the times that public transport services arrive and depart specified locations. It isn't a travel guide either, as it does not have sufficient infromation to be one. See the links you posted in your first message on this page. Try and pinpoint one particular thing somewhere in those guides that I have on the article, that are not suppose to be there. You won't find any. How about you try finding some secondary sources (that in your opinion are good). See how hard it is. What does it matter if the article would stay, if you don't want to read it, fine don't, no one is going to make you, but leave it for the other people who would want to read it. Stuart.Jamieson, what is YOUR personal experience with buses, because if you don't have any, perhaps it would be better to stick with pages (even for deletion) that contains information you know about, rather than trying to delete things, you may not even understand properly. To Oakshade, thank you so much for your support. Needed a lot here. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a timetable or travel guide, but it's a lot closer to either of those than it is to an encyclopaedia article. I don't need to find "Secondary Sources" because I don't believe there are any, but they are they requirement we set if we can't find them then the article does not deserve to be on Wikipedia; and yes it can be hard for some subjects but putting in the hard work is worthwhile when it reveals better sources and makes a better article if they aren't available at all; the article should not be on wikipedia because an encyclopaedia is a high quality work and articles should at least have potential for becoming high quality. A list of Bus routes only does that in rare cases - for the rest, a prose article discussing bus transport in the particular region is capable of becoming much higher quality and being better sourced. My personal experience of buses (not that it's relevant) - Aside from using them over the past 30 years (though I prefer using trains); I have numerous friends who work for Alexander Dennis and I could tell you lots about the construction and design of the buses on the routes you seek to list. Personally I work in a service industry with connections to the Bus industry and regularly carry out operations that affect and are affected by service bus (and other transport) operators - Both logistically redirecting bus routes on behalf of a local authority and our private clients, managing vehicles at particular stops/venues, managing queues of patrons at stops, I've worked directly for Brian Souter as a client managing a large private bus system on behalf of the Stagecoach Group so yes this is an area I have experience in and I see the advantage in private sites maintaining this information - but it is not something of encyclopaedic value except in exceptional cases such as London. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually quite good experience. With that we could make a good article together. Why not? How about I'll tak ecare of the route and frequency part and you write about the bus type (I have a source for that). That could give this page great potential. Two experienced users who work together could make great things!'''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but it's not a subject that I would enjoy writing about, if I did it would be bringing work into my hobby which I only ever do on a small basis (correcting some facts on my employer's article, adding some detail to the article of a film I worked on) - If you wrote such an article I might do copy-editing on it but that would be my limit. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to include that on the list (with the name changed). If you could only tell me of some source that could help, and then copy-edit that would be great! I could then make the pagew survive, if you please give me some time to add the things to it. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Many urban-suburban railway operators with articles here have route maps and some have route lists with photographs of stations, areas served, station opening and closing. Focus is on the service the operator provides over established routes. I note this article lists the operators at the top. From a public transport point of view, the routes might be listed by operator, and linked to operator articles, as it is done for rail transport. It is entirely possible that operators would change over time due allocation of contract to operators by way of bid and selection and proven capacity to provide the level of customer service the Essex County Council's Passenger Transport Unit specifies. If the article were to be redesigned by Operator listing for routes, then I would advocate Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteguru, the detailed sections lower down are, because routes 1,2,5,6,8,8A are operated by one operator, while routes 61-68 are operated by another, these are the only routes that will have a detailed section. They are listed by operator, although it is not specified on the article. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I totally agree with everything Stuart Jamieson has said, and it would be tedious to repeat it, but there is another important aspect that has not yet been addressed. If this type of aticle including detailed information on bus frequencies, start/finish times, weekend services etc. exist they can and will be used as a source of information by bus users who will find it easier than tracking down the bus operators' own sites. If the articles are not rigourously updated there will a serious risk that Wikipedia will be carrying misinformation. I have no doubt that Adam has the enthusiasm to do this now, but in seven or eight years time he may be at college, have a girlfriend or whatever and move on leaving these lists as a forgotten cobwebby corner of Wikipedia. If this was a list of sweet shops in Colchester someone taking their children to a shop found on WP, which had since closed, they would have dissapointed children but no real harm done. A single mother with a hungry baby waiting by a country lane in ten years time for a bus service which no longer operates at weekends, although it is shown on the WP page she has googled on her mobile, might be in a more serious situation. Do we want to risk some young person being abducted, raped, and murdered because they have followed out of date information on WP? Given the number of people who now use WP as their primary source of information this is not such an improbable scenario.--Charles (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, that was a highly improbable, extremely negative scenario. There is a reason for which there is a date at the top. It says on what day the routes are valid. If the date is from 2 years ago, then someone will proably think about it, that things may have changed and it would be good to double check. I do go over my pages around every 1-2 months to check they're up to date, like I have recently done with Ipswich. As you may have seen, I know have found many secondary sources, that I have been adding for the last couple of hours. Also, route 6 has now got a History sections (which has appropriate references) and I am searching for more information. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There's certainly the potential for harm to people who rely on Wikipedia articles, although I'd suggest Charles' enthusiasm might be better directed towards Home wiring or First aid. The consensus is that the Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer is sufficient, and we need not worry about the risk of harm from people following Wikipedia's advice (although I'm personally a long-term advocate of giving a great deal more prominence to the disclaimer links that appear on every page).

  The argument Charles makes doesn't traditionally carry much weight at AfD except in as far as it refers to biographies of living people (although in that case any risk of harm to a living person trumps almost everything).—S Marshall T/C 14:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Charles, see the WP:Disclaimer. Your fear mongering is frankly utterly irrelevant to this Afd. If that's your only (stated) objection, I think its going to be completely ignored. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I clearly stated that I share all of the objections raised by Stuart and it is not "fear mongering" to point out the real possibility of public harm and damage to WP's reputation from this type of unencyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--Charles (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now added 20 secondary sources. They are from the local newspaper and from an independent bus enthusiast who had his own page.Almost everything is now covered by a primary and a secondary source. I am still searching for more. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't intend to vote per my general stance in the Rfc. But if Stuart wants to start citing the Rfc in Afds he needs to get it closed with an independent summary. Second, if he wants to quote people's comments in it, he should inform them, as in my case he's got my meaning wrong - I was simply demonstrating their fixed nature, not their non-independence from authorities (and as said in the Rfc, there's not much point obsessing about that, as in all areas of the UK except London, subsidised networks mostly overlay commercial ones, the only difference is usually time of day). While subsidised services are designed by authorities, commercial ones aren't - but they have to registered and therefore cannot be changed willy nilly. Diversions, even long term ones, are irrelevant on that score. Whether these all appear on one map or several is generally pot luck and not indicative of anything. But I would tend to agree, maps are only usefull for verification, not asserting notability. I would finally note that Stuart has clearly stated he has no intention of looking for secondary sources - and as such, his comments should be weighted acordingly per WP:BEFORE. And per BEFORE, all this talk of converting this to a general article about buses in Colchester tells me that it would be rather pointless deleting the list of routes until then, as it would form a large, verifiable, section of that article. And as an article section, it would have no need to demonstrate notability at all. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC

• I am intending to change the article to Bus routes in Colchester, in which all of what is there now would be included, plus some things I have found about about the 1950s and 1960s transport. Stuart, I have found that the Colchester bus network does come from a tram system. If you would like to see the source, reply here.'''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Mick I'm quite happy to do so but wasn't sure of the procedure for un-archiving it preserving any relevant history and without breaking the archive. I intended to do so when User:Rcsprinter123 was discussed at administrator noticeboard incidents as he also primarily creates/edits these articles and it seemed pertinent when one user suggested he should concentrate on these; however I can find nothing in Wikipedia:Archiving that tells me how to reverse the process - If you know/are able to do so I'd appreciate it; However I do not cite as a reason for deletion, I cite it as an important debate on the subject which contains many similar arguments against these articles but clearly it is neither a policy or guideline even if closed by an independent admin - For the same reason previous AfD's even when closed independently do not become policy though they can be cited when making changes to policy. Secondly I don't see any policy that requires me to inform you that I'm quoting you unless I'm directly accusing you of something, If you feel I am accusing you of something I'd like to know what it is or like Adam I suggest you discuss me at Wikiquette alerts not here. Thirdly if you say they are fixed by *someone* (which I draw from your quote) then that someone is not independent when discussing the route - as you agree that the map is only good for verification rather than establishing notability I don't see any need to discuss my argument further other than to say I was not expressly drawing my conclusion from your quote but also from personal experience. If you quote WP:BEFORE in relation to my comment "I don't need to look for sources", please note my previous comment "I don't see any sources that would save this article in it's current form" I had already searched for reliable sources that discuss the subject as a whole and found none, Adam's continual asking me to provide him with a source that I could not find and did not believe existed prompted the reply that I had no need to search (beyond everything I had already done) for a source that would save the article as I did not believe one existed - that does not mean I had not searched at all and in a reply where you accuse me of misquoting you, it would appear prudent for you not to do the same to me. Finally if such an article were to be created this should be the place to discuss such a change and the article should be incubated pending such a change - again this is the place to discuss incubation. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally have asked at Administrator Noticeboard Incidents how to get closure of the RFC, but not had response yet. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Stuart, I am not asking you to find sources for my areas of expertise. What I would like is maybe a website you know of, that contains some of the information you say you know about buses, as this could help me make the page better. As you said: "I could tell you lots about the construction and design of the buses on the routes you seek to list.", I would assume you know of a place/thing that contains the information that you could tell me about. Particularly, if you know about the buses in Colchester, it would be a great help. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Adam, You have already been given information: Redrose64 told you to look for "write-ups in Buses Magazine", I suggested "Colchester 1904-2004 Trams to Arriva" by Collins and Mills at the link above, There are other sources such as "Eastern National and its Predecessors - 60 Years of Service to Essex 1930 - 1990;" by Dodson as well as the "Busmopolitan" one you found yourself; but these do not help the notability of this article in order to help save it - they do build further notability for a Buses in Colchester or Buses in Essex article. Why not start a userspace draft of a prose article and when it meets our policies of Notability and verifiability based on sources such as these then move it into article space (if you're not sure if it meets them you can add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses#Review, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Essex#Assessment and get feedback from those wikiprojects) articles such as Buses in London are a good template, but the list here should be contracted and inserted into the article in the way that something like First Edinburgh does it, not spun out into a separate article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm intrigued. Why would Adam jump through all these hoops when he has a perfectly acceptable list to work on right now?—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to change the name of the article to what you suggested, Stuart, so that the "Busmopolitan" builds the notability. I found a source for the bus system in the 50s and 60s, as I mentioned before, and I will go to my local library to try and get the books you mentioned (I assumed they're books, tell me if I'm wrong). Could we just please vote for keep, just for know at least, as 4 days won't really be enough to transform the article. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case I would be willing to consider accepting userfication of the material until it met the general notification guidelines, but the question would then remain over similar articles you have created that remain unsourced (or sourced only to primary sources). If this AfD closes on that basis, would you consent to having them also moved into your userspace until you had similarly improved them as well? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I have managed to get hold of Eastern National..., it will arrive in a couple of days. Unfortunately, Suffolk Libraries do not have Colchester 1904-2004... and I can't find archive issues of Buses Magazine. I do have some sort of old magazine behind my sofa, and I'll look through them for info, they're from 1978. I'll see if I can get to a WHSMith or something similar to see the latest Buses Magazine. Yes, I suppose they could get moved, but if someone would be willing to help out with finding sources for the rest. It's pretty hard work and I have some very important exams coming up (though I still have loads of time). '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I changed my mind, and I think I would prefer the Winchester and Andover (at least) pages to stay. It will be very hard to find sources from there, as I'm not from that area and Suffolk Libraries, don't tend to get books on local history of other counties (except London). As for the Suffolk ones, they can be moved to my userspace.'''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE - I despair if this is what Wikipedia is coming to. Stuff like this doesn't belong here, it belongs on Wikia where all the Duane Dibbleys of this world can work together on a new version of FantasyBusWorld™. Wikipedia is not a directory, not a place for hobbyists, not a place for bus spotters. Stuart Jamieson speaks a huge amount of common sense and I applaud him for bringing this to AfD. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 23:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Your personal dislike of the topic has absolutely no relevance to this Afd. And admin who even thinks about giving your opinion any weight is on a fast track to desysopping tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Simple Bob. It's not a matter of whether the sources may or not may be sufficient and reliable, or whether they change or not. The matter is that the content is meant for an area that WP doesn't dwell that much into. The work done is very solid, and a very good source of information for the proper channel, it is just too fine grained to belong here. Anything on the history of the lines and any impact of them is more than welcome, just verify, don't research, and be neutral - frankie^MR (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Rename and reformat as Buses in Colchester, as suggested below by Adam and S Marshall. The only thing I see a problem with is the timetables, the lines themselves are encyclopaedic - frankieMR (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As I hope you noticed, the whole timetable is not in the article. I include the frequency and first and last bus times, but no the whole thing.  Adam mugliston  Talk  19:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• frankie, I am beginning to include Hisory sections, but you must understand it is very hard to find appropriate sources, when you are not from the same county, as local resources are hard to obtain from other places.

  I understand, and i do support userfication of that material so you may work on it properly - frankie^MR (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Bob, I suggest that the reason your comments are sometimes "taken personally" is that you have a tendency to comment on contributors, rather than content. Try approaching this differently, and things might work a whole lot better. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Simple Bobfrankie quotes WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, but I don't see which of these is a reason for deletion. It's verifiable that there are bus routes in Colchester. It's not original research to list them. And the list certainly maintains a neutral point of view.—S Marshall T/C 14:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I quoted those three policies and not Simple Bob (AFAIK), and not as the reason for deletion of this article. I've modified it for clarity - frankie^MR (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for that error!—S Marshall T/C 11:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep bus routes for a large (pop: 100,000+) city in the UK. Useful and informative.  The Steve  09:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not a directory, not a travel guide. There are better places to look for this type of information.--Charles (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What limits do you then draw on usefulness and informativeness for a large city - A List of Public Toilets is useful and informative and verifiable does it deserve a place? Of course today these are becoming rarer so what about more common things, I've already discussed footpaths above; but what about a list of all the Pizza Shops in a large city it's useful, informative, verifiable and if local papers have discussed the cities pizza shops from a common angle (comparison of them, walking tour of them, council regulations that affect them all) it may even be a notable subject? Surely Useful and informative is no better than saying "I like it so it should stay" we need a bar for inclusion as we cannot contain every indiscriminate list of things within a city that people think are "Perfectly acceptable" for inclusion here - For every other article we set that bar at a measure of how writers and scholars have noted the subject by discussing it in their work - no-one has done that here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pizza shop one is a good idea, I could help with that. I quite like the idea of bars too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a low carb diet, any suggestions of lists for me? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Useful" and "informative" are listed on WP:ATA and not generally given much weight at AfD discussions; but the rebuttals seem equally weak to me, in that as I've said above, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Nobody's suggesting Wikipedia should publish a list of pizza shops in Colchester.

  As a "keep" !voter, I could make a similar argument. I could say, "if we delete this then we ought to delete all the lists of buses on the encyclopaedia!" But that would be a slippery slope argument too, and contrary to usual AfD practice, so I have avoided making any such statement. I do urge that the "delete" camp refrain from such arguments as well.—S Marshall T/C 14:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a slippery slope, I'm not saying "if we allow this article to exist; other articles will come to exist as well" which is the slippery slope - I'm saying we set a bar for the existence of other lists and asked TheSteve where he considered that bar should be placed - currently yourself and others are arguing for a bar that is easier to cross than the bar set by any notability guideline currently on wikipedia. Even gazetteers hav a level of notability above which they record things and below which they ignore it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think it's a higher bar than, say, WP:PORNSTAR.—S Marshall T/C 15:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case you'll be able to find reliable secondary sources that will show that these routes have:

1. Has won a well-known award such as the UK Bus Awards or UK coach Awards.
2. Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years.
3. Has a unique history or is a uniquely important route such as The Witch Way
4. Has been discussed multiple times in notable mainstream media (such as a nationwide TV news report, or nationwide newspaper)

If not then then the bar isn't even as high as a Pornstar, much as you may think the subject is more useful than lists of those working in the Adult Entertainment business. I can't find sources that meet any of these requirements. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, hardly. Pornstars get articles when we're missing basic biographical facts (e.g. their names, nationalities, ages) and those AVN "awards" are issued by the bucketload. There are better targets for deletionist zeal than bus routes!—S Marshall T/C 22:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If they don't meet the bar that has been set for pornstars then they are eligible for deletion - feel free to go right ahead to prod or AFD them you appear to have the knowledge to make such a call - I do not and have no interest in gaining that knowledge. For buses there is currently no bar set other than GNG and the article fails it, it also fails hypothetical notability guidelines for buses such as the one above, unless of course you are proposing the creation of a guideline that all lists of routes are automatically notable despite a lack of reliable secondary sources analysing the subject (something that is nearly always disputed by everyone except it appear by bus enthusiasts) in which case go ahead and try writing and getting consensus for such a guideline before trying to use it in AfD. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I realise that it's your position that this article fails the GNG. Mine is that it passes, because as I've already explained—and with all due respect for your many protestations to the contrary—a map is a source and a map from an independent publisher with editorial oversight is a reliable source. I thought your arguments based on WP:NOTTRAVEL were stronger than the notability one, although still mistaken.

  I've never liked subject-specific notability guidelines and I generally prefer to apply the GNG in all cases, it's much simpler and more consistent that way.—S Marshall T/C 23:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if we were to consider a map secondary for the purposes of General Notability Guidelines (it's not) it still doesnt "Discuss the subject in detail" (it just gives a general overview) and GNG says "'mutiple' sources are generally expected" to establish notability so the article would still fail GNG. This material would have a better home on the UK transport wiki on wikia where notability is not any requirement for inclusion. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, but, all that means is that we need two different maps by two different publishers: hardly an insurmountable obstacle. I agree that a transwiki to the UK transport wiki would be appropriate, but it's not necessary to delete this list in the process, since this list consists of appropriate content for Wikipedia's gazetteer function.

  The GNG evolved in order to deal with marketing spam, Stuart.Jamieson. Its primary purpose is still as an advertisement-removal tool, as well as to require sources to prevent false claims. The GNG was not intended to prevent good faith users writing uncontroversially true material that end-users might actually want to look up.—S Marshall T/C 08:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Preicsely, two maps are not a problem. But the UK Transport Wikia? Think about it, how many people know of Wikipedia? 100 million? more? And how many people know of the UK Transport Wikia? 5 thousand? 10 thousand? Maybe 50 thousand. No more. There's no point putting it anywhere else, as on here it is far FAR more likely to be read.  Adam mugliston  Talk  08:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If one map fails to discuss the subject in detail, then two are still going to fail that. That said No Original research found that while maps could be any type of source, they could not be used to confer notability of the subject - just for verifying other facts. Having multiple trivial mentions is never a reason for creation of an article. Also on your other point WP:GNG was adapted from WP:NMG which came into being because articles were being created for artists/songs that were not of enough notability to be of use to our readers outside of a minority of specialist users who would be better off at a site like wikia. - Early versions of GNG do focus on marketing issues but these have largely been taken up by specific guidelines such as WP:CORP and WP:SPAM whilst GNG still remains. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you link was about roads, and it's important to consider its context and intended scope. To quote User:COGDEN from that discussion: We are not omnicient or smart enough here to codify, in a vacuum, when you should and should not use maps in all circumstances.

In parallel with that discussion on roads, I've already said that I don't believe a map is sufficient to confer notability on an individual bus stop or a single route. That would be too narrow in focus for a useful gazetteer. (This parallels the previous discussion's conclusion that a map can't confer notability on an individual road.) But I think it's reasonable to extrapolate that a map can confer notability on the public transport network of a city.

A corollary of this view is that a map could confer notability on the road network of a city, by the way, although it's not necessary for us to decide that issue here.—S Marshall T/C 10:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Stuart, I thought we agreed on temporary userfication, isn't that right? '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, while I'm open to the idea of userfication it is the decision of the closing admin not me that decides whether it will be userfied or not. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Who is the closing admin, then? I thought it was you as you started the AfD.  Adam mugliston  Talk  15:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AFD#How an AfD discussion is closed, where it says "an uninvolved (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin ... will assess the discussion". So, it can't be the nominator, who is very much involved (even if he had made no posts other than the original rationale). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per Thesteve. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 19:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Stuart, after reading your reply to S Marshall, one questio comes to mind. How come no one nominates coach routes, with their own articles, for deletion. What's so notable about them?  Adam mugliston  Talk  21:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• They are regularly look here at least 334 (also including route lists) have been taken to AfD with 145 being deleted and further 55 failing to reach consensus. And that's just ones that actually use the term "Bus Route" there may be others that use more specific terms. There are also many more that I can't list that have been redirected to operator or "buses in foo" style articles or have been Proposed for deletion and not contested or even simply Speedily deleted. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart, these were examples of extremely notable pages. They have large hisotry sections, Do not give the whole timetable, summarize the route, everything's perfect!  Adam mugliston  Talk  07:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is no argument that if this were a tram, subway or even trolley bus network then it would be seen as an inherently notable topic, being of significant importance and relevance to our encyclopaedic coverage of the settlement and a network of bus routes are equally important to a city. There was a comment a long way upthread regarding systems that had descended from streetcars. In the UK we call them trams, and Colchester had them between July 1904 and December 1926 (source: [17]), so it would seem that this system meets that suggested criterion for notability. Indeed were a tramway decommisioned today, it would not be encyclopaedic to ignore the bus network that succeeded it, WP:RECENCY would suggest that ignoring it because it happened 80 years ago would be equally unencyclopaedic. Stopping our coverage of the system at any arbitrary point between then and now would be equally unprofessional (unless it's just to split it over more than one article for length issues, c.f. History of rail accidents (1950-1999)). Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The other systems you mention are all permant features of the landscape, part of the fixed infrastructure. It is disingenuous to pretend that the modern bus routes have any real relationship to a tram system that ceased as long ago as 1926. A feeble excuse for trying to keep a stinking pile of original research.--Charles (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And Adam, your signature is very bright and distracting. Would you mind toning it down a bit?--Charles (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not original research. It is all referenced,a lot with secondary references. My signature is suppose to be bright.  Adam mugliston  Talk  09:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bus routes will have a real relationship with the tram system - the current generation of routes are descended from the previous generation which are descended from the previous and so on. Unless there has been a radical shakeup of bus routes in the interim (I don't know, but it's not a common event in most British towns and cities) then you'll probably find that the system is not that different to how it was in 1930. There will have been expansions and contractions of the network, some numbers will have changed, and there will be minor changes here and there as road layouts change and business moves, etc. but these are all incremental things and if Colchester is like most cities you'll find that the core routes change very little, because people still need and want to get from A to B. Once you actually start to look at the facts rather than assumptions, you'll see that far from being transient entities public transport networks of all sorts have long histories of evolution - which is why people write books on them, such as the ones being used to reference this article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, I agree. I have a source, where there is a list of the bus routes from 1933 and 1959. The numbers have all changed but the routes are very similar.  Adam mugliston  Talk  09:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The other systems you mention are all permant features of the landscape, part of the fixed infrastructure". Three things on that point. First, they are clearly not permanent features of the landscape, since they aren't there any more. Second, bus systems do also have infrastructure in place to support them - in this instance, the location of Colchester's main bus station is apparently some sort of controversy that attracts endless mind-numbing commentary and reporting in local and some regional newspapers (Adam, you should be able to find something on that if you look hard enough). Third, bus routes do also have infrastructure in place to support them along their lengths; things like specific kerb improvements installed at particular points, bus lanes ranging in length from a dozen yards to half a mile or so (some of which are not just repurposed sections of existing road; they have separate newly built sections of road, their own independently run sets of traffic lights, etc) and the electronic bus expected-arrival information boards which are now not just in the town centre but also increasingly present along the suburban lengths of the routes. These minor infrastructure improvements also garner some limited coverage in printed references. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf,There are no sources that are books and simply list bus routes - There are historical books that discuss the history of public transportation system in Colchester and I have no problems with an article like that being written similar to Buses in Bristol or Buses in London and including some detail about the route numbers and how the routes have changed (and I would similarly look for List of bus routes in Bristol to be merged into the Buses in Bristol article). Generally Physical Tram systems are major civil engineering works and raise a lot of secondary sourcing in their construction and dismantling - as bus routes are simply constructs with no physicality they don't create as many of these sources which is why this subject is sourced in a way than shows no notability for the existence of a pure list. Instead sources discuss all related subjects type/model of bus used in colchester over the years, key planning issues about route changes over the years and so on - Ideal material for a non list article but this article isn't it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart, this is going to be Buses in Colchester. I'm afraid it can't be done yet, because I don't think I can change the name during and AfD process, but that is what will happen.  Adam mugliston  Talk  11:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, you don't own the article so ideally consensus on this AfD should tend towards the goal that you are suggesting - that is the userfication of the material. Arguments for Keep rather than for Move/Userfy could lead to a consensus where if you wanted to userfy/move later it could be seen as against the consensus to keep it in the current format at the current location. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Adam's recommendation is probably best summarised as "keep and rename", I think. The "userfy" position was based on his earlier misapprehension that the AfD nominator controls how the discussion is closed.—S Marshall T/C 12:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Precisely what I meant to say, might have not worded it properly. Stuart, I know I don't own the article. As S Marshall just said above this, I vote for Keep but Change Name/Format, as I think it's best to make it Buses in Colchester. With this were all in agreement, because you said yourself that would be notable.  Adam mugliston  Talk  12:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename/reformat to Buses in Colchester, which is where the real notability and encyclopedic potential for this topic lies. A list of present routes in the town is reasonable, but would be even better as a component of a larger prose article covering the extensive and well-documented history of bus operations in the town (at least one book, two pieces in Buses Magazine and plenty of local news sources cover it). Alzarian16 (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to Buses in Colchester, require expansion of context, and get rid of the ridiculous sections after the list in the first section per all the comments above. There is no way the community can maintain the accuracy of all the routes and timetables that are in the article, and they are subject to such variation and change that we are very mucch likely to be spreading unverified misinformation in the near future. Direction to the websites where readers can find the time tables and actual stops on route would be much more preferable, Sadads (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - until rewritten as Buses in Colchester as nom - The article creator has continued to work on the article during the AfD but all those edits have been to expand the detail of the list without establishing notability for the subject. The creator has on his own talk page stated that his only interest is in "the routes and timetables" and I have reservations that if moved instead of being userfied the same non-notable content will remain just in a different location. It is better that he be encouraged to rewrite as prose in his own userspace rather than continuing to focus on list formats. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This will be made into Buses in Colchester, as soon as the AfD process finishes, as I don't think it is allowed to change the name during an AfD process. As for the quote, my interest in routes also includes their history, which is far more notable.  Adam mugliston  Talk  13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is exactly my point, simply Moving the article will not make it better or more notable. Improving the content so that it meets our notability requirements is what is required. The history of the routes is only marginally more notable - so far I can see one source that would establish the history of 6 of the routes on your list back to 1959, 20 years after the Tram lines were lifted (of which there were only 4). That leaves something like 84 routes on your list with no notable history recorded in the source we have so far, and like Buses in Bristol the notable information is in the general history of bus travel in Colchester not solely about the history of bus routes. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to buses in Colchester. Topic is clearly notable as per the mention of secondary sources already listed in this discussion. Whether the original article creator has been working effectively towards inclusion of those sources, or merely has them on order from a library, or has an excessive personal interest in routes and timetables, or whatever else, does not affect the topic's notability. The topic (buses in Colchester) is also covered in secondary sources such as here, here, here, here and others, in addition to the ones already mentioned. The extensive debates above where it's mentioned that bus routes in cities where the routes were established after 1990 are generally not notable, but bus routes in cities where the routes were based on an existing tramway system generally are notable, is a clear indication that notability is met in this case - Colchester's bus infrastructure is obviously much closer to the latter than the former, as has already been acknowledged in this discussion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with nom that article fails Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline, Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If the article was more general in nature, fine, but it contains far too much detail and timetables that is totally un-encyclopedic as per WP:NOTDIR! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL, but also more importantly, because it's a list of bus routes and this is an encylopedia. Just like I don't expect to see an article about benzethonium chloride pinned up at my local train station, nor do I expect to find local transport advice on the pages of Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you read the article and this discussion? The article is in the process of becomming far more than a list of bus routes. Additionally, as shown by articles such as List of bus routes in London and List of bus routes in Greater Manchester such list can be encyclopaedic so deleting this "because it is a list of bus routes" would be like deleing benzethonium chloride "because it is a chemical compound" - just because some are not encyclopeadic does not mean that none are encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for assuming that I've commented here blindly, reading neither article nor discussion. However, I actually have read both, and – in common with the substantial number of people who have argued that the list should be deleted – nevertheless feel that the list should be deleted. I didn't notice you badgering the others, incidentally, so I guess I should be honoured to have an additional opportunity to comment. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The other people who have recommended deleting this list have expressed their opinion in terms of this article, rather than a general class of articles. From other AfDs it appears that some people see "List of bus routes" in the title and then recommend deletion on that basis. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought I might mention, that I have been working on the article in question, to make it more notable. The new History section at the bottom, explains how the tram system evolved and how it became a bus system.  Adam mugliston  Talk  21:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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