< 1 March	3 March >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Non-admin closing WP:SNOW by User:PMDrive1061 §FreeRangeFrog 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zangief strategy for hd remix[edit]

WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook", and this is all this article is – a game guide. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been deleted once before by yours truly as a completely unencyclopedic how-to. Going to be WP:BOLD and delete this yet again under WP:SNOW. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 04:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Phillips[edit]

Contested ((prod)) so bringing it over to do it the long way. No indication of having competed at anything approaching the highest amateur level or in a fully professional contest. – iridescent 23:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Yes, but I've added reference that he has competed at the Junior Olympics, and the Pacific Coast Classic, but national and professional events.-thekiddd90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekiddd90 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. §FreeRangeFrog 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, no notability. Parslad (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth John Nies[edit]

Claim to fame is that he is a former Abercrombie & Fitch model and in related to Eric Nies and John Nies. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Plastikspork (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria addresses people related to notable people, which does open the door for inclusion in the more notable persons article, which could be debated as well. Plastikspork (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - as the creator of this article I figured he was (maybe) notable enough because of his acting work but I'm happy to bow to consensus. "KJ Niles" gets more hits than ""Kenneth John Nies" but many of hits on the former are of different individuals than the one discussed here. BTW, John Nies and Eric Nies are mentioned in the article because familial relationships are a point of interest, not a point of notability. --Boston (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources the article has don't appear to me to be very reliable or demonstrate significant coverage, and I couldn't find anything else through a search to support Wiki-level notability or meeting of WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. No IMDb or Fashion Model Directory pages. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability even in his field. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. X clamation point 01:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RBC Ministries[edit]

No assertion of notability, small organization Tznkai (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant organization within Christian publishing and broadcasting -- its flagship media outlet, the publication Our Daily Bread, is highly notable. A Google News search confirms notability: [1]. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree, my impression is that this organization has a large footprint in U.S. christian broadcasting/publishing. I will say in support of the nom though, that the Google hits don't really reflect stories about the ministry itself. Still, whiie notability is not inherited, I can't really wrap my mind around the publication being notable and the organization directly responsible for publishing it failing. Worst case scenario, the information here should be merged to Our Daily Bread with a redirect left in place. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its been my impression that the author of notable material is not necessarily notable - you the distinction more in fictional work articles.--Tznkai (talk)

Keep But not for the reasons above (which are largely reason for Our Daily Bread being notable, which is not questioned here). There are sufficient verifiable 3rd party references (CFO, Ann Arbor Times, along with some other brief mentions in a variety of print sources) to establish notability of this company per WP:N.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - nearly went for delete now and recreate with when sourced, but it reads as if notable so survives, imo, as a poor article about a somewhat notable topic. Properly sourced it will be secure. Springnuts (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Kay[edit]

Classic WP:BLP1E; if it were not for the University Challenge brou-ha-ha, this would be a speedy since there's nothing outside that however, I believe a PROD would be resisted, so to save time, I bring this here for a decision. Rodhull andemu 20:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's going to be nothing relevant in this article that can't just as well go in the University Challenge 2009 article (indeed, it is somewhat perverse to expect readers of that article to have to click through to this article as well) so merge and redirect. --79.71.234.130 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but as an article documenting the University Challenge event (I don't think there's an article on this yet), not about the contestant. Most of the article is about the disqualification anyway, and I think there's enough interest in this event to warrant an article (unless it can be squeezed into the main article, in which case possible Merge). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, missed above point. Redirect to University Challenge 2009. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this bio comes under the category of fifteen minutes of fame; see also Gail Trimble. . .Rcawsey (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The University Challenge article says everything that needs to be said about the man and the incident. Belasted (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as the nominator says, this person has received coverage for a single event and as such (per WP:BLP1E) doesn't warrant a stand-alone biography. Would advocate merging into University Challenge, but the incident already has sufficient coverage (a paragraph) there. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe it is important to have an article on the contestant in question. ISD (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The above editor is the article creator. Perhaps it would be a good idea for the person to explain why it is important. Belasted (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]~~

Alright. Considering the fact that it is an important news item, and that there are articles covering other people in scandals on other game shows, I do not see the point in not covering Sam Kay. ISD (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to labour the point, but Fame != Notability, and vice versa. --Rodhull andemu 23:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article on that 13 year old who was the putative father of the baby was deleted on similar grounds.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For my suggestion, see what I have typed at the nomination of the article on Gail Trimble for deletion. Rather than delete the information on these people, why not start a new article on something like "Notable Contestants on University Challenge" and redirect both articles there? For a more detailed account, see what I have suggested at the Gail Trimble nomination for deletion. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sod it. Just delete the bloody thing. I'm not going to win this argument. ISD (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic WP:BLP1E, as the nom says. The whole incident is worth a couple of lines in the University Challenge 2009 article, no more than that. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University Challenge 2009#Notable events and press coverage. There's nothing on this article that realistically can't be found there (probably). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously, for exactly the same reasons as its sister article. – iridescent 23:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Redirect - Delete the article after merging any relevant information into University Challenge 2009, then create a redirect to that article. You know, I had a nasty suspicion someone would create this article after the news on this whole sorry affair broke yesterday, but this is a classic case of WP:BLP1E and this person is not notable otherwise. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-

Delete Not independently notable, the article basically says nothing about him, it is all about the DQ. Merge any useful content into "University Challenge".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Kevin (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete classic WP:BLP1E and another reason why game show contestants shouldn't have articles - cover the show, not the bozos making fools of themselves trying to get rich and/or famous. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Editors should not equate this article with the one on Gail Trimble. Trimble became notable, in my view, because of her own skills and success, which generated wide interest in her as a person and could lead to her continuing notability (not getting into that argument here). Kay was not as notable as an "ordinary" member of the same team, and is only possibly notable now because of the implications of what he did, i.e. misinterpreting the rules. There's a significant difference between the two cases, in my view. If this article were to be deleted, it would not be inconsistent to keep the one on Trimble. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, classic case of single event five minute wonder. Wikipedia is not a news service. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Agree with Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth - there are BLP concerns, so a speedy delete is justifiable. Incidentally, the other similar articles could probably be speedied as well. PhilKnight (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alli Muhammad[edit]

Was originally PRODed with "Nothing indicating WP:BIO, and Google turns up so little that I think this is just a vanity article." Was also PROD2. No reason given for dePRODing. Article is part of a nasty walled garden of bad articles (unreferenced, POV, not-notable, possibly defamatory). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global white extermination. DanielRigal (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable -- Chzz ► 20:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable (per my earlier prod). Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my PROD2... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete = The article is unreferenced and the related articles about the Revolutionary Black Panther Party and its beliefs claim an extremely racist and violent philosophy. This needs to be deleted immediately as an unreferenced negative BLP, as do the related articles. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Early close per WP:SNOW. I have not protected against recreation at this time, but caution any would-be creator that any article that substantially similar to this one is subject to speedy deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aniand (book)[edit]

Article about unpublished book written as an advert by book's author. No notability whatsoever. ((prod)) and ((prod2)) removed by author. Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BK#Not yet published books and WP:SPAM. JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Spam, crystal, etc. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with salt and Snow --Triwbe (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spamspamspamspam -- Chzz ► 20:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quote: "Yaya only intended to write about 4 to 5 books in the series but, owing to their high sales and immense commercial success, he went on to write 6 full-length books featuring the characters.". Quote 2: "The first book, Aniand is still being written.". I can personally quite well understand how a series can expand of its own accord, but these two quotes seem to me to be totally incompatible. I would think the second quote is the most likely to be correct, as I only get ghits at bookemon for this author and work. (2 ghits) Date of creation: Jan 11, 2009. Hardly enough to obtain 'sales' of any sort - especially as "The first book, Aniand is still being written." Non-notable at present. While Harry Potter was rejected by several publishers at first, I feel this hasn't got to the submitting stage. If it does (get published), we'll reconsider. Peridon (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salt spam and crystal? Sounds like a rather uncomfortable meal.... Peridon (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize how much sodium is in one serving of spam? Try 580mg. MuZemike 22:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete – I don't think it's of the blatant nature for G11, but it's defintely pure crystalballery. Also, it is clear that the creator is using Yaya jallow (talk · contribs) to write the book. Whatever it is, it defintely does not belong here. MuZemike 22:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ye gods! (and little fishes...) I'm sorry to be negative, but it's stuff like that clogging up the publishers' in-trays that makes it hard for anyone sending good stuff to get considered. It all gets tipped into the bin. Well, if the writer is about 13 it's not so bad for practice, but it's nowhere near publication standard except for lulu.com. Looking at it again, it reads a bit 13ish. Advice if this is the case: Abandon this for now. Keep it and later it might form the basis of something worthwhile, or bits might be recycled. Work on creating characters with character, and dialogue that sounds real. Don't go for the epic to start with. Start small and get the style flowing. And watch the spelling - spell checkers only find non-existent words. They don't point out wrong words. Peridon (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Unpublished, unsourced, unnotable, and based on the intended use of JK Rowlings characters, its a fanfic. Edward321 (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, COI, WP:Crystal ... just delete, don't drag this out and have this poor kid wasting his time writing children stories. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 00:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. If the author is still writing his first book, it probably isn't notable. Note that I have cut out eight paragraphs of Harry Potter plot description from this article which presumably are not going to form part of this novel. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Spam, Crystal Ball, Notability to name a few. BigDunc^Talk 11:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with WP:SNOW but hold the WP:SALT (if they are repeatedly re-created after deletion etc.). -- samj _in^out 12:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User has created a number of articles with at least two accounts and has been warned various times and is currently blocked. -- samj _in^out 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Escouts[edit]

Does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (web). No secondary or tertiary sources are used. Reads like an advertisement. jergen (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with proposal -- Chzz ► 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless content can be improved before close of AfD - have archived current content to Scoutwiki. DiverScout (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The odds of this being improved enough to merit inclusion are pretty much nil. The problem isn't so much the quality of the article (though it reads as a big ad), the problem is that the subject itself doesn't seem notable at all. It is a service for a very limited market (scouting) and Gnews searches comes up with nothing. (I did find an eWeek article but it turns out that it was for "eScout", an unrelated sales company.) Fails WP:CORP. -- Atama ^chat 23:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tried to add some 3rd party sources, i know none of them are great and only to do with stats. The problem is most news about this site travels via word of mouth which makes it very hard to find sources. TSA HQ know about the site, chief scout even sometimes posts their, but can't find any record of them mentioning it, although i know they have. but almost all news is communicated via Word of mouth within the scouting community. and Atama, on the last count there where 453,273 scouts in the UK, 28 million world wide. not exactly "limited market". ;-) --Philb28 (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, it's a "limited market" by definition. By targeting only a particular group, whatever the size, you're limiting yourself. Compare to most international businesses who have literally billions of potential cusomers available. This is all academic however, because whatever the clientele, if any solid information about this business can only be found is word-of-mouth then it's not verifiable and the subject fails Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. I'm not unsympathetic toward such things because I was involved in scouting for most of my youth, but this organization unfortunately doesn't fulfill some basic requirements. -- Atama ^chat 21:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow Up - If this article is deleted as it looks like it probably will be, it might be worthy to take some of this information and put a blurb in one of the scouting articles. Just a paragraph about what this place is and why it's important to scouts. -- Atama ^chat 21:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Apologies, see what you mean now about the limited market. I read it as if you where trying to say scouting had few followers. I had a look at other scouting articles that it could be included in. not really sure which one you could put it in though. Is it not going to look a bit tagged on and not really relevant to the rest of the article? --Philb28 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could work on this within the Scouting WikiProject as there are a number of forums that could be compared, perhaps in the Scouting article? DiverScout (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Khan Khel[edit]

Prodded, then contested as "notable as assassinated journalist". Only sources are about his death, making this a BLP1E. MSJapan (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the two links currently given don't lead to info about him. Not only isn't notability established, his existence isn't established. --Boston (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not establishing independent notability for the individual as compared to the greater topic of journalists being killed. Person who removed prod tag claimed that any killed journalist is notable, which is obviously not true just on the face of it. This person really needs to stop wasting everyone's time by going around removing prod tags for reasons that do not come close to meeting Wikipedia standards. He might a well be a prod-removing bot for all the thought that goes into it. DreamGuy (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal catalytic model[edit]

Non-notable hypothesis, seems far off from mainstream biology. There are no sources other than those written by Christopher James Davia. Narayanese (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because, while it may be correct, it is essentially original research. Wikipedia -- like all tertiary sources -- does not publish novel ideas. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google Scholar returns only two hits, neither of which are peer reviewed, and both by (as the nom says) C.J. Davia. Once this is covered in reliable sources, it might become notable, but it doesn't seem to be yet. Anaxial (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. This original and relatively unknown theory has been presented by other respected scholars, which is how I heard of it. Since then, I have cited it prominently in several publications. What is perhaps most telling about its originality can be seen in a contrast with conventional thinking. For instance, functional brain imaging relies on a metabolic signal, the BOLD signal, but does not propose a metabolic basis of perception or action in neurophysiology. The connection is indirect: brain works, needs fuel, gets fuel concomitant with the BOLD signal. By contrast, Davia sees a nervous system with a primary metabolic function that nonetheless integrates perception and action in autocatalytic processes working on multiple scales. Scaling phenomena of brain and body are consistent with this story, as are observable traveling waves in the neuropil. I hope these ideas keep their home on Wikipedia and inspire work to further test the validity of the basic premise. 3 March 2009 Gvanorde (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)— Gvanorde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - This "relatively unknown" theory is not notable because it is relatively unknown. Wikipedia is not a place for reletively new ideas to develop constituencies. Wikipedia aims to present anything and everything that is notable. Whether that thing (whatever it may be) is right, wrong, novel, commonplace, obvious, counterintuitive, big, small or whatever is immaterial. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of reliable sources; notability not established.--E8 (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. I've collected together the references necessary to try and refute the criticism of "non-notable" and "too far off from mainstream biology" and in order to do so I have quoted in full (so sorry if it's a bit long in places):

The model has featured variously at the following events:

Davia, C.J. Minds, Brains & Catalysis. Seminar presentation in the Dept. of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University. March 2002 and Dept. of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, April 2003.

Davia, C. J. The Brain as a Catalyst: Implications for Cognition, Creativity, Consciousness and Learning. Invited talk. Conference on Learning & The Brain. Cambridge, MA. May 9-11, 2002.

Davia, C. J. & Carpenter, P. Minds, Brains & Catalysis. Presentation at the American Psychological Society. New Orleans, LA. June 8, 2002.

Davia, C. J. Biology, Brains & Catalysis. Presentation at the New England Complex Systems Conference. New Hampshire, June 10-14. 2002

Davia, C. J. Minds, Brains & Catalysis: Simplicity Theory. Talk. Toward a Science of Consciousness. Tucson AZ, April, 2003.

Chris Davia ‘The Candle and the Flame’ February 2005, E-Intentionality Seminar, COGS, Department of Informatics, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, UK (Energy Structure and Adaption in living processes)

Carpenter, P. and Davia, C.J. ‘A Catalytic Theory of Embodied Mind’ (2006) Proceedings of The 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Vancouver, Canada)

The following has been published about the model:

Davia C.J (2006) Life, Catalysis and Excitable Media: A dynamic systems approach to metabolism and cognition. In Tuszynski J (ed.) The Emerging Physics of Consciousness. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Publication date – June 19 2006

Patricia Carpenter and Davia, C. J (2006). Mind and Brain: A Catalytic Theory of Embodiment (A paper that links the theory more directly to research in cognitive science and perception; as yet unpublished - draft is available)

Patricia Carpenter, Davia, C. J and Ram Vimal, (2009) Catalysis, Perception, and Consciousness: New Mathematics and Natural Computation, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

The following people cite or support the model:

Patricia Carpenter (Lee and Marge Gregg Professor of Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University) cites the model as the basis for her research into embodied cognition (see her own wikipedia entry) and has talked on it at CogSci 2006 (see above) under the title ‘A Catalytic Theory of Embodied Mind’ - which has been reviewed as “building on the proposals of (a) Gibson and ecological psychologists concerning the role of invariance and (b) Shepard, Gestaltists and neuroscientists …”.

Professor Jack Tuszynski (current holder of the Allard Chair in Oncology at the Cross Cancer Institute in Edmonton, Canada having previously spent 17 years as Professor of Physics at the University of Alberta and on the editorial board of the Journal of Biological Physics) gave the fractal catalytic model a chapter in his book entitled Life, catalysis and excitable media: A dynamic systems approach to metabolism and cognition, pp-255-289, The emerging physics of consciousness, Tuzsynski, J.A. (Ed.), Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

In the introduction, Prof Tuszynski comments: “Christopher Davia in his chapter entitled: “Life, Catalysis and Excitable Media: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Metabolism and Cognition” examines how life maintains its organization and describes an entirely novel principle that unites all living processes, from protein folding to macroprocesses. Davia’s hypothesis is that the same excitable media principle applies at every scale: living processes involve catalysis, biological processes mediate transitions in their environments, and enzymatic reactions act accordingly. By pinpointing enzyme catalysis as a prototypical process, Davia identifies energy dissipation as playing a major role in biology. Possible mechanisms contributing to excitable media are identified, including solitons and travelling waves, nondissipative and robust waves, all of which maintain their energy and structure in their biologically relevant environments. Particular emphasis is placed upon the relationship between microscopic instances of catalysis and travelling waves in excitable media. Pertinently to the topic of this volume, it is suggested that the brain is an excitable medium, and that cognition and possibly consciousness correlate with the spatiotemporal pattern of travelling waves in the brain. Davia offers this theory as an alternative to the functionalist perspective that underlies much of current theoretical biology. A key strength of his theory is that the same principle applies at multiple scales, potentially explaining how many biological processes that comprise an organism work and cooperate.”

It is referenced in other papers such as:

Origins of Order in Cognitive Activity – Geoff Hollis, Heidi Kloos and Guy C.Van Orden, University of Cincinnati:

“In effect, metabolism is the primary form of self perpetuation of the brain and body. Therefore, an elegant theory would be one in which cognitive activity emerges out of metabolism and self perpetuation. Such a theory would begin to bridge the chasm between laws of physical processes and cognition. Davia (2005) outlines such a theory based on autocatalytic reactions, which are fundamental metabolic processes … Davia (2005) equates enzymes with self-perpetuating structures called travelling waves … (and) argues that the nervous system functions as an excitable medium.”

and

Architecture of a massive parallel processing nano brain operating 100 billion molecular neurons simultaneously (Unedited preprint of an article to appear in the International Journal of Nanotechnology and Molecular Computation (forthcoming in 2009), published by IGI Global <www.igi-global.com/ijnmc>) - Anirban Bandyopadhyay (Advanced Scanning Probe Microscopy Group, Advanced Nano Characterization Center), Daisuke Fujita (Materials and Nanoarchitectronics (MANA), National Institute for Materials Science 1-2-1 Sengen, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-0047 Japan), Ranjit Pati (Department of Physics, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Drive Houghton, MI 49931 - 1295, USA) :

“Importantly Christopher Davia’s brain model (Davia, 2006) also concludes that spatio-temporal pattern of the travelling waves inside our brain is responsible for computation. Solitons, travelling waves and non-dissipative robust waves maintain structure and energy during computation of our brain. However, according to him this condition is valid till they are propagating in the relevant environment. This particular condition enables the system to generate versatile decision-making and global co-operation in biological computation. The CCU potential profile mimics modulation of polaron/soliton length, which is equivalent to Davia’s constraint condition.”

and

Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence Volume 20 , Issue 3 (September 2008) Pluralism and the Future of Cognitive Science: Peirce's abduction and cognition as we know it - Guy C. Van Orden

etc

In summary then: As it’s described as an example of an “elegant theory … in which cognitive activity emerges out of metabolism“ and that it “build(s)... on the proposals of (a) Gibson and ecological psychologists concerning the role of invariance and (b) Shepard, Gestaltists and neuroscientists …” it could probably be argued that it’s at least ‘continuous’ with “mainstream biology”. And it’s notable enough to feature in neurocomputing proposals as well as more ‘philosophical’ discussions. DerryTaylor (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Eat Your Face[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I'll Eat Your Face

Article that was nominated for CSD (no admin intervention/author removed it) about a band that does not say why it is notable. The only "sources" are the band's site and MySpace profile, falling outside of WP:BAND and WP:SOURCES ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 19:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interview with the band up on a major Irish music website, used as a reference point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike McGrath-Bryan (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well written article; with a good source. Just needs more sources. -down load | sign! 19:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I'm not seeing the "good source". I see an interview with a non-notable webzine and the band's myspace page. "Well written" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the band is notable. We keep poorly written articles and delete unsourced, POV masterpieces daily. As we should. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am seeing the good source. Generally speaking bad sites don't get award nominations. Still based on their about section. I doubt it's a reliable source: "Drop-D began by "giving musicians a voice" enabling the local talent to profile and platform them selves, over time we realised that we needed a wider scope and it was necessary to include national and international coverage in order to develop an audience to "give musicians a voice"." - Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG: does not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Fails WP:BAND, 1 through 12. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, no album releases on notable labels and no indication of extensive coverage in reliable sources (which obviously precludes the webzine). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eat It's Face and devour the rest of it as well. It is just another myspace band... Tavix (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Mordacq[edit]

delete per nomination. This looks like any random person holding a profession. This guy happens to be a professor. Does that make you notable? Stijndon (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- looks like he's cited pretty frequently on Google Scholar.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the Google Scholar citations, it is safe to say that he meets the first inclusion criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the citation impact suggested by this search (which replicates SarekOfVulcan's) is a solid one, it seems to fall a bit short of meeting WP:PROF criterion #1. There is only one well cited pub, with 81 citations. Also, I could not find a full web page for him at Northwestern; is he a tenured full professor there?--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google scholar just list scholarly pubs, I believe. All professors have them. We either need to document highly cited important work or awards. I do not see that here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Just short of what is needed to qualify as notable under WP:PROF, as I noted in my comment above. Seems to be in a non-tenured lecturer appointment at Northwestern; may be affiliated with a research center there. Only one news entry in Google News, which makes it hard to justify inclusion under WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Subject's position of Distinguished Senior Lecturer at Northwestern might legitimately meet WP:PROF #5. Google Scholar references satisfying WP:PROF #1 is debatable: one (moderately?) referenced paper (81 citations over 20 years), a dozen or so other papers with under 15 references. Web of Knowledge public search comes up blank though. Can't find evidence of other criteria. I would only vote keep if consensus is to keep based on both WP:PROF #1 and #5; otherwise delete. If kept, this should be flagged for an expert in molecular biology to confirm notability and sift through the research: the current lack of detail is very troubling. chuuumus (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't read much into the title without knowing the department. The senior lecturers I know of were more or less adjuncts who had stayed at the same school for more than ten years without pursuing tenure. They were definitely not notable. Jvr725 (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I can't tell from this article whether there is any particular subject within molecular biology in which he would be considered an expert. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shankopotamus[edit]

This page contains no references, written like it belongs on Wiktionary, and has been redirected to E-Trade before the consistent creator of the article restored it for no good reason. Obviously a result of not reading Wikipedia's guidelines properly. Leo-Roy!^review/gb 18:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appeared in one commercial, not evidence of further notability given. Don't bother with redirect unless substantial coverage appears in eTrade article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOT still applies --^StormRider 03:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AOD Software[edit]

Non-notable company. One source in the article is a press release, the other is guidelines which make no mention of the company. Ghits return press releases and other trivial mentions. Fails WP:CORP and thus WP:V. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 18:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Corporate advert. Nothing but the company's website and press releases out there. §FreeRangeFrog 00:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam/advert created by single-subject user; no references which establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: blatant advertising for a minor non-consumer software developer with no showing of importance at all. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Ramlar[edit]

No notability established, no reliable sources except for a single review dragged up across all of the internet, which doesn't come anywhere close to establishing a reason for this to have a Wikipedia article. Another case of an article that had a prod removed by an editor who seemingly solely exists here to remove prods for no reason. DreamGuy (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources available in addition to the one already in the article, e.g. [2]. Also worth noting is that there is a book series set in the world of this game, with at least some reviews of those books providing additional reflection on the game. JulesH (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as notability is not established. If it's notable, improve the article please don't just cough up references here in discussion. --Boston (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it seems the reviews added are independently written (not just one review cloned). It was, however, entirely appropriate to bring this to AfD debate. Thanks for improving article. --Boston (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - several 3rd party review for this game are available. Here's another one [3] Esasus (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Never heard of it, but the flames review by itself does it. Cool site that, never saw it before and it will be darn useful in sourcing game/RPG stuff in the future. Hobit (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamStreet, The Musical[edit]

Procedural nomination: 64.6.103.81 tagged the article for AfD, but was unable to complete the process. His/her comments from the article's talk page are below. I abstain. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please rewrite or delete this, it really is blatant advertising. "effectively captured and sadness, fear and hope of the kids as they faced their last night together and an uncertain future" "unusual and groundbreaking for it's time", "must-see" "rave reviews" "muscular, athletic and witty choreography thrilled audiences " yadda yadda. 64.6.103.81 (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In fairness, this was a real and verifiable Las Vegas production [4], although sources about it may not be easily accessible. A Wikipedia article about it may be justifiable as long as the hype is removed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that there should be an article about the musical, but not this article. Please consider this nomination withdrawn if anyone actually does rewrite the thing. 64.6.103.81 (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The show is verifiable and won an award. The problems mentioned can be solved through editing without deletion which policy explicitly cites as a reason not to delete. AfD is not the place to force cleanup. Leaving a note on the talk page of the editor who created it, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicals is a better move. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The show is verifiable, and given the dates that it ran, it's not surprising that web sources for information are a bit weak. I'm positive that reliable offline sourcing can be found by people who are local to Vegas and the other production locations. (And I declined a speedy and prod by the same editor who tried to open this discussion.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7, no notability asserted, and not likely to be in the future.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early March 2009 Nor'easter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Interesting as the snowstorm may be, it is not what Wikipedia is about. WP:NOT#NEWS pretty much covers it. I couldn't see a speedy deletion criterion for this or would have nominated it for it Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Volonakis Davis[edit]

Contested PROD without comment. This seems to be a writer with a single published book and a substantial online presence but very few reliable third-party sources that can help establish notability. Article claims author is a finalist (not a winner) in a book competition. I can find only local references, but nothing that would help pass WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog 17:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See author comments in talk page. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also posted on my talk page, where I explained the WP:BIO issue to the author. §FreeRangeFrog 22:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to support Notability in article or in Google. Only claim to notability is not an award, but only that the author was finalist. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At present, her book is in on;ly one worldcat library. However, it has just been published. The publisher Harper Davis, is the publishing arm of a literary agency, but not a vanity publisher. We have so far considered USA Book News and its [awards http://www.usabooknews.com/2009bestbooksawards.html] unreliable sources for notability. There are 150 categories of awards, and from 2 to 10 finalists in each category--many, but not all, from self-publishers. For the 2007 awards, the actual winners in their 14 Adult fiction categories had library holdings of 1783, 1426, 1118, 1085, 834, 487, 112, 32, 7, 5, 4, ,4, 3, 0 respectively. Obviously an award from them is meaningless, either to prove or to disprove notability. DGG (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with DGG's review of the situation. Currently, Davis does not have the level of achievement needed for an encyclopedia article FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Userfy without prejudice to recreation should N be reached, per DGG's impeccable analysis. THF (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the editors above. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 22:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese IT[edit]

Speedy Delete: New company according to blog and only reference. Tags removed for OR, orphan and CSD (twice) by various suspected socks/SPAs. Suspected COI giving rise to policy violations including WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV. Appears to have zero coverage. -- samj _in^out 17:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject is not unique as the article even mentions other manufacturers that do the same thing. No other notability is asserted --Emana (Talk) 17:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nahapet[edit]

Delete does not meet WP:FILM. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete This is an amazing and poignant film, one which many Armenians have an affinity to. Why would anyone wish to delete it when we have films of so many other titles from so many other obscure (read former Soviet republics) countries. And should you not discuss something on the talk page before doing so so quickly?--The Diamond Apex (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some third party sources reference the film (and are included in the article). Seems to have cultural significance. Given the release date, not too surprising it doesn't have a lot of ghits.Vulture19 (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with print references being AGFed. --Boston (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the criteria "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Also, I believe that if a film from a country that isn't a major film producer receives wide screening in the UK or the US, it adds to its notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Google Books displays snippets of the sources in the article, which check out,[5][6] and many of these books appear to discuss the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial voice over IP network providers[edit]

As per discussion on Talk Page this article is redundant to the VoIP Companies category and does not add any additional value other than to help spammers -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 16:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list and a complementary category are both useful. For the list , additional information can be added. I think perhaps we should say explicitly as a guideline that the should usually be both constructed as alternative means of navigation, unless there is some special reason otherwise. DGG (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I've been tracking this article for a while and it appears to be a spam magnet and provides little additional information. Calltech (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page as it is constructed and titled currently. The page has never had any useful information, other than being an index to Wikipedia articles, and because of its limitation of including only Wiki-linked companies, it's also misleading in terms of market representation, but apparently used as such in referring articles. It may be useful if expanded to include information of VoIP technology (protocols, hardware, etc.) used to provide service and perhaps other information, but this should not exclude conventional telephone operators as most telephone operators already use VoIP by now for some aspects in their networks. Further it should not be limited to commercial providers either, since the focus of the article is 'VoIP', not business, apparently. Kbrose (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the fact that categories and lists are complementary, not redundant. "Redundancy" of a list with a category is not a valid reason to delete. The list already contains country information, which cannot be included in the category (without splitting up the category and making it harder to navigate). Also, "spammers" can target any article, including Voice over Internet Protocol, so this is not a valid reason to delete either. Finally, "an index to Wikipedia articles" is one of the stated purposes of lists, so lack of other useful information is not a valid reason to delete either. DHowell (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the additional information is useless cruft because if I wish to know what countries a VoIP operates in I can just look in the article Benefix (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list and a complementary category are both useful, but Wikipedia is not the place. It is not "Encyclopedic". Not only that, the information within is in a constant state of flux, with various offerings changing by the day. Appropriate subject for a Web page someplace, but not at Wikipedia. Proxy User (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Xygalatas[edit]

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)).

The article is autobiographical and does not meet notability requirements for biographies of people in academia. Notability notices are continually removed by subject and others without discussion. Cited sources are all written by subject. Chuuumus (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A postdoctoral fellow, with no actual authored books, one co-edited book, 5 essays, and a number of translations. Not yet notable. DGG (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was the one who removed the notice on January 19, and I did enter the discussion. There are far les notable people who have their own entries. I am sure this is not the case, but it looks like you are making this personal, Chuuumus.Neologistic (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) — Neologistic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete "far less notable people who have their own entries" does not establish notability for this article. The 19 January 2009 discussion did not establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) -- the notice was simply removed without any further evidence from reliable, independent secondary sources (as it was again by Neocultural (talk) this morning). My AfD nomination based on those criteria. Chuuumus (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from an academic, subject is a very notable translator. His translated books and edited volume are used as textbooks in Greek universities and have been reviewed by some of the most reliable Greek newspapers. I will add references as soon as I have the time.GreekTiger (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC) — GreekTiger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I was the one who removed this notice for the second time. Dr. Xygalatas is an expert in the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR). He is arguably one of the foremost authorities in the anthropology of fire-walking. I am currently an Assistant Professor of Religious Studies and the subject gives "invited" lectures in North America and Europe as an authority on both fire-walking and CSR. He has translated and published some of the world's leading theorists in translation, as well, as published in peer reviewed journals and edited books. As a member of the American Academy of Religion, the North American Association for the Study of Religion, and the American Anthropological Association, I can confirm that the subject is an authority in his field, widely publishes, presents invited papers at major research universities and conferences, and holds a major position at a research one institution. He is also, a founding member of the leading branch of research, The International Association for the Cognitive Science of Religion. The person who is making the request to have this page removed sounds almost personal?? Exactly who has the authority to say what a "reliable, independent secondary source is"? neocultural(talk)18:45, 2, March 2009 (UTC) — Neocultural (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's possible for a postdoc to be notable for his academic achievements, but it's very unusual. I can find no evidence (in the form of highly cited papers, popular press concerning his research, etc) that his work has made the impact required to satisfy WP:PROF #1, nor that he passes any other WP:PROF criterion. I am also troubled by the parade of single-purpose accounts already evident in this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. This subject fulfills rule #1, 4, and 7 under the terms of WP: PROF. It should be noted that postdoctoral positions in the humanities and social sciences are classified quite differently than postdocs in the natural sciences. Postdocs in the humanities and social sciences are engaged in their own highly "original" research (unlike say Biology where postdocs usually work in another researcher's lab on an existing project). And this subject has generated via ethnography, film (ethno-documentary), and experimental evidence a highly regarded collection of research/data with an original theory to explain these forms of action. It seems to me a waste of time that people are judging this subject when they are from outside his discipline and are unequipped to classify Dr. Xygalatas' research in a proper context. I would also like to state that he might qualify for a WP: Artist, since he is one of the few (if any) filmmakers/documentarians to film "firewalkers" in Greece and Spain. Neocultural (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not make two keep comments in a single AfD. I have struck out your second one and fixed the other damage you made to the comments here in adding it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I believe subject might fulfill rules #2 and 6 as well. He has received a Ted and Elaine Athanassiades Research Fellowship in Hellenic Studies at Princeton, which is one of the most prestigious postdoc positions in Hellenic Studies. Furthermore, he is an elected member of the executive committee of the IACSR, which is the most important academic association in the the area of cognition and religion. P.S. Eppstein, I am not trying to get two votes here, just elaborating. You can strike out one of my "keep" if you wish. GreekTiger (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Just to add to the points already made by DGG and David Eppstein, the subject’s citation impact is essentially zero at the moment.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Holding a postdoctoral fellowship, even a distinguished one, is not necessarily or even usually notable. A postdoctoral fellow can be notable, but they have to have done something significant. Any presumption of notability that one applies to full professors at major universities does not apply at lower ranks, and there are several lower ranks than that until one gets to him. Being the president of a major national or international professional association is notable, being just a member of the executive committee is not. We must judge by the record for WP PROF and by the outside substantial references to the work for WP BIO. As for PROF, he has not authored a single book. he has written no more that 4 or 5 journal articles or book chapters. He has translated a number of standard English books into Greek. A person can be notable primarily as a translator, but except for translators of major creative literature, where the role of the translator is itself creative, it would take really strong evidence & I see none. As for being an authority in a speciality, I see at the most that he is a specialist in firewalking in some European cultures--not even in firewalking as a world-wide phenomenon, let alone anthropology of religion generally. As for the sort of substantial third party references that would satisfy WP:BIO, I see none of them. What I do so is that his friends think well of him, but we do not base the encyclopedia upon personal testimonials. As for academic testimonials, I wouldn't think much of one which said merely "take my word for it". When he has authored several well reviewed books and has a major academic tenured position, then he might be notable. DGG (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet fascism at its best! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neocultural (talk • contribs) 03:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are reminded to read our civility policy, in which you did not follow. Don't throw the F-word around again. MuZemike 04:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete agree with the assessment of Eric Yurken, DGG & David Eppstein. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has all been said by Eric, DGG and David. There's no notability, despite the rantings of some SPAs. --Crusio (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If DGG can't find notability for this fellow, it ain't out there. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somali models[edit]

Delete we have a category Category:Somali models, which seems to be preferred to an unsourced list as this is when we are dealing with WP:BLPs, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The category is more than enough. §FreeRangeFrog 00:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No incoming links and it duplicates the category. (I don't think there are any BLP issues as the articles themselves clearly state they are models, the articles on the list or in no way contentious. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11 Tone 22:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doo-Bee Toys[edit]

Delete appears to fail WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- clear spam, was added by account whose edits show obvious COI, speedy delete tag was removed by creator of article against rules on such things, and I *think* that this article was deleted already recently, perhaps on a slightly different name. If speedy is not possible, snail delete is fine too. DreamGuy (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G11. I had nominated this one for speedy deletion, but the author removed the notice unilaterally. Firestorm ^Talk 19:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Caldecott[edit]

No reliable sources, no reason at all to think it's notable. Was prodded by someone who tried to Google around for info and could find anything. Prod notice was removed by -- you guessed it -- the regular guy who goes around removing prod tags without any justification. It's too bad he wastes our time by forcing AFDs on such clearcut cases. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: I found (lots of) sources which all directly name the subject without a great deal of difficulty, which might have been an idea for the nom to have done before bringing this here. one brave monkey 17:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those come even CLOSE to meeting our standards for establishing notability, as they are all trivial minor mentions. The fact that someone was in a production in no way makes them notable than any other minor actor in the world. And maybe *you* should learn about our rules on such things before chiming in. DreamGuy (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steady on, no need for that. Those sources are supporting various references to appearances Caldecott has made and as such are valid sources and verify the claims made in the article. He has had direct reference made to his performances in several well-known newspapers and theatrical journals, something I think at least lends to the possibility of further work on the article rather than deletion. Also, I think it's bad form to delete another editor's attempt at rescuing the article during an AFD discussion, especially if you're the nominator. one brave monkey 19:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those soures are reliable and verify claims made in article that the person has been in some shows, but so have millions of other people. You need to prove NOTABILITY. Otherwise as sources they are completely useless, and do nothing to justify a keep vote. DreamGuy (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with you that millions of people have had write-ups like that, but concede that notability (even without caps) needs a bit more of a push. I think it's a Weak Keep for me, but I'm still convinced that it's not a clear-cut case for deletion. As an aside, I'm not impressed with other editors' actions either, but dirty laundry is not to be washed at AFD. one brave monkey 07:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I was the person who put Prod on it. Since then the article has improved and is much closer to being acceptable. (The article had previously been a mess of trivia and promotional drivel.) The references provide verifiability of the roles played but I still feel that sufficient notability has not been demonstrated. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - :The nominator, DreamGuy, is clearly referring to me in his opening comments, so I will take a moment of my time to respond to his rant against me. The nominator is an editor who is upset with me because I disagreed with him on another article that was successfully rescued from his diligent efforts to have it deleted. Since then he has been nominating virtually every article that I have edited, reviewed, or rescued. He constantly asserts that my rescue is “disruptive” or against the “clearest of cases” for deletion; yet in the vast majority of discussions my rescue is supported by the consensus. In this article he is at it again. His assertion that this article is one of the "such clearest cases" of lack of notability is only a clear case of the shameful bluster of an antagonistic editor. The above and following discussion of divergent opinions will attest to the fact that different editors have different viewpoints. It is my opinion that this article is worthy to Keep, and that is why I removed the Prod in the first instance. Quite frankly, I am growing weary of DreamGuy's childish rants against me and other editors (such as against Onebravemonkey above) who disagree with him. I respectfully suggest that ~~DreamGuy should get a life~~: don’t make every discussion and argument, and please stop your immature and repeated attempts to prove me wrong; because, you know what? It doesn’t matter. Sometimes it may be that a discussion will demonstrate that an article that I tried to rescue falls short of a favourable consensus, but in the vast majority of the times my actions are justified by the consensus. And at no time have I improved an article, added references, or removed a Prod just to “waste everyone’s time”. This article should be discussed with the view to finding a consensus, and with the knowledge that it is brought to you by a nominator who has a huge chip on his shoulder. Esasus (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esasus, please be strongly reminded that WP:Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles.--Boston (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You think EVERY article is worthy of keeping, apparently, and don't bother to give any valid reasons why... and when called on it you become abusive. That about sums up your contributions. And, frankly, yes, that wastes everyone's time and makes Wikiepdia far less useful than it could be. DreamGuy (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - Your comment that I think EVERY article is a worth keeping clearly false, and another example of your bluster and overstatements. I strongly object to your false characterizations.Esasus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It should be noted however, that while it is your (and any editor's) right to contest any PROD for any reason, there is a reasonable expectation that the person contesting the PROD will do something to address the concerns put forth on the proposed deletion nomination. You fail to do that rather continuously. So you leave people no choice but to take the articles to AfD. Whether that is a problem in the "clogging up teh tubes" sense or a backlog issue with sysops who must close the AfDs is not something for me to theorize on. Regardless of that angle, I have observed that you frequently don't make any efforts to rescue articles once they're on AfD, other than vote "keep" based on who-knows-what guideline or policy. I think we all agree that your actions are well-intentioned, but sometimes they're just slightly annoying. I would be the first to thank you for rescuing an article I PRODed. But simply removing the PROD without addressing the concern for which it was added to begin with isn't something I (or any other editor) tend to appreciate. The nominator of this AfD is correct in that we might as well have a bot that goes through the dated PROD category removing tags and leaving "this entity is notable" comments without actually doing anything to improve the content itself. I am not attacking you for doing this, just questioning the methodology :) This is probably not the best place for this, but we can discuss on someone's talk page if you want. Cheers. §FreeRangeFrog 00:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The nom has made my removal of the PROD a focus of this discussion. I am honour bound to reply to your comments. First I need to appologise to everyone for telling DreamGuy to "get a life". Although I was taunted, it was still uncivil of me to respond with such a personal attack. On the other note, I note that wiki policy does not require an editor to give reason for the removal of a PROD; but nonetheless, if I am rescuing an article I will almost always improve the article before removing the Prod, and if I remove the PROD without improvements (which is rare) I almost always state my reasons. Concerning the article in question, prior to removing the PROD I edited the article and added an external link to the subject's page at IMDB. Esasus (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears the article is trying to draw on the notability of the venue to pass it on to the actor. If he is at all notable, it comes from association with a theatre company rather than making a couple of appearances at a venue. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've shuffled it around a bit and found a couple more refs. Not having any luck identifying independent theatre companies that he was part of, but it seems he was a resident at the Royal Exchange for a bit... Anyway, I think that's me done with it! :D one brave monkey 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete = I'm not seeing the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" (from WP:ENTERTAINER) for this fellow. It seems to be a string of starring or supporting roles in small or mid-range performances. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on the (non-policy) feeling that a bunch of poor indications of notability might weigh as much as a couple good ones. Comment: Let's avoid deletionist/inclusionist partisanship and forge ahead. --Boston (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the play reviews mention him and note his performance with a single line, but without one substantial article about him, or more substance to review of his role within a review of a play, this falls short of what is needed for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject appears to be a working actor—indeed a talented one—who simply hasn't garnered sufficient recognition to meet the notability criteria. References to him—even the flattering ones—are all passing mentions, with no significant coverage as required by the guidelines. With luck, he'll get more than trivial mentions in teh future and be an appropriate subject for inclusion in the future. Bongo matic 01:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of acceptable references. That he has few entries at IMDB is because he works the stage, not the screen. Well known in UK. Err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. Proxy User (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Boston put it best: "notabilityness is not adequate". –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaping The Dungeon[edit]

Extremely nonnotable piece of old software. Article has been tagged as not establishing notability or having reliable sources etc. for more than a year. Was another article prodded but had the prod removed by a serial deprodder who never gives any adequate reasons for removing the tag. DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable early DOS computer games released 1993. Esasus (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just insisting that every article you see with a delete tag on it is notable, perhaps for once you'd like to offer an actual reason why... and one that follows actual Wikipedia criteria? DreamGuy (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment to DreamGuy - it is improper to remove the references contained in an article while the discussion is still in progress.Esasus (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reference in question is there twice needlessly. --Boston (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, MobyGames consists of user-generated content and is hence not considered a reliable source. Second, placing it as an external link under the References section makes it very hard for readers to determine whether an article is sourced or not. That's why we use inline citations for this exact reason! MuZemike 00:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For once I'll agree with Esasus. This has historical value, it's not an advert and you're not going to find many sources for it other than the one or two already given. §FreeRangeFrog 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you can find other sources, you're just very unlikely to find them online. Games prior to 1997 tend to have better coverage in print sources than online ones, as the later internet sources don't tend to go back to cover older products. -- Sabre (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And here I chucked my entire collection of PC Magazine back issues a few years ago... back when it had more than 10 paper pages! Real paper I tell you! §FreeRangeFrog 00:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability must be shown; notabilityness is not adequate. One source only is given, twice. I encourage the expansion of references and might change my opinion to "Keep" if the article is improved.--Boston (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Notability is not the issue. If the game was indeed released widely, it's clearly notable. The issue lies with the lack of sources and the difficulty to get any. I recommend someone to contact Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service if they think they can get sources out of it. I'd be happy to give this the benefit of the doubt and leave it in userspace for 2-3 months for sources to be found because it's very unlikely to be something promotional. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is the issue as I don't see it established that the game was widely distributed. I agree that we should be somewhat lenient in regards to proof required, but currently the sole source provides is basically a wiki/blog. --Boston (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unionsoap (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here is the game creator's website [7] Probably worth keeping. Kagetto (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rezurex[edit]

Fails the standards in WP:MUSIC. Has album released, but not two albums on a major record label, and so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets minimum criteria for WP:MUSIC. Esasus (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly think so, then please explain HOW it meets the criteria for WP:MUSIC. There does not seem to be any that apply, and indeed it explicitly fails all of them. DreamGuy (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it doesn't currently meet criteria. However, if there's one review maybe there's more. I encourage the expansion of references and might change my opinion to "Keep" if the article is improved. --Boston (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin T. Buell[edit]

Was prodded by someone else with "A search for references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. This has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
2009 March 2 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." I agree. Article is promotional/vanity with no reliable sources and no claim to any reason that Wikipedia readers would care. DreamGuy (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I prodded this article when is was a cut & past of web sites. Esasus has since added "Buell is a former commissioner for the Professional Karate Association and a former rating chairman for Karate Illustrated Magazine." If this had a citation, I would be satisfied with its notability. jmcw (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure those meet our criteria for notability, but until such time as reliable sources proving it are found I don't know that I'd trust the claim in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ebay has old editions of 'Karate Illustrated' with Buell's name on the cover. I believe he was editor: I just would like a better reference than an Ebay photo<g>. jmcw (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could just ask the editor to provide the source so we know if it's trustworthy information. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So would any editor of any magazine no matter about size, scope or attention the world paid to them at large be proof of notability? No. There would have to be outside sources documenting notability. So this particular line of thought is a moot point. DreamGuy (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as former commissioner for the Professional Karate Association, and as former rating chairman for Karate Illustrated Magazine, with additional coverage as he has received as the head of a franchised karote school, the subject meets the minimum standard for notability. Esasus (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I am having trouble with the link http://www.warrenkempo.com/index.php?categoryid=11. Do you know of a more reliable one? Thanks. jmcw (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again we have User:Esasus in a deletion discussion showing up to make claims of notability but not bothering to support them with any real sources. If there's additional coverage, show it, and hen we can see if it meets WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY standards. It's up to the article to demonstrate notability. DreamGuy (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - question DreamGuy, do you and Esasus have personal disagreements? jmcw (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy has been stalking me since I disagreed with him in a discussion a few weeks back. He has been just been blocked for 55 hours for his dispuptions on another matter [8] so we will have peace for the weekend, but watch out for sockpuppets. Esasus (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability well established as former commissioner of PKA. Winner of notable competitions. Article is adequately referenced. Proxy User (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With no prejudice it being recreated if it becomes notable. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snegopady[edit]

Non-notable future single, fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Disputed redirect/prod. SummerPhD (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content to main article since there's no known release date - if it ever will be released. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 08:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red cunt hair[edit]

Just a slang phrase, and not a particularly notable one. Not much documented history, and no notable use as to warrant an encyclopedia article. After having removed a lot of original research (see here for the revision prior to my edits), this is basically a dictionary definition for a slang phrase. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:41, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Delete Completely nonnotable slang, and second cited reference doesn't even contain the term, so it's an extremely rare term if one tiny mention in a huge slang book is all they have. DreamGuy (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm an inclusionist who thinks that virtually anything makes a legitimate wikipedia article, but this is obviously a sophomoric in-joke that is neither amusing, interesting nor, most importantly, notable. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the article is amusing or interesting are your OPINIONS. The only valid subject your statement addresses is whether or not the article is notable, and you fail to provide any evidence as to why it is not notable.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral for now~~ - There are some mentions in Google books, so the origin and use of this term can be sourced. That being said, it probably violates WP:DICDEF and maybe WP:NEO. On the other hand, the term is at least 30 years old (in a book published in 1973, see above link). If someone wants to take on the challenge of sourcing, cleaning up and expanding this article past a dictionary definition, I would support keeping it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been expanded and sourced, successfully (in my opinion) addressing WP:DICDEF and WP:N concerns. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - It's not a childish term, and it's not as rare as you might think, just perhaps limited to a certain field - ie engineering types in the UK. I don't know about other countries, but it is relatively common over here. Please consider non-US wiki visitors - this is exactly the sort of thing a non-engineering type might stumble across and wonder about. Also, if you are voting against, please give a policy reasoning, so I can at least attempt to improve the article as required. Don't be too quick to delete it; I'm going to do some digging for better refs. It's always difficult with slang...they have the same issues in 'Cunt', for example, where everyone in the UK knows that it's less offensive over here, and frequently used as a term of endearment amongst mates, but they can't find a citable source to prove it. -- Chzz ► 16:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think WP:DICDEF is the most pressing concern. There were already refs showing that the phrase is "legitimate" as slang, and what its definition is, so the way I see it, that was really never in question. The question is, is there enough reliable material available to make it an encyclopedia article, rather than a mere definition? Equazcion •✗/C • 16:36, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
- I forgot to add, I think WP:N is also a concern. That the phrase shows up in slang dictionaries isn't proof enough of notability, I think. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:42, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
  - Hit that 'refresh' button. Red cunt hair -- Chzz ► 16:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've been keeping up, don't worry :) I see a lot of added refs but I'm not sure they "count" towards notability. I'm so far just seeing examples of usage in literature. Normally notability requires actual coverage of the item as a topic, not just examples of use. Unless I missed a ref that does that, in which case feel free to correct me. The DICDEF concern still stands too, just as a reminder. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:01, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
      - Understood; I'll work on it. With it being offensive to some, makes it much more difficult to source. Well, that and the *very* distracting websites you come across! I've found not-too-obscure publications using 'cunt hair' in context, and maybe the article will need to make more of that version of it, which appears a bit more popular than I expected. I'll work towards negating DICDEF though. Maybe a picture would help? -- Chzz ► 17:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Depends what the picture is of :) Sorry couldnt resist. It's possible the article could benefit from a shift to encompass the general "hair width meaning small measurement" group of phrases. I'm not sure if there's any article on that yet, and it seems that this is really just one specific instance of it. Like missing something "by a hair's breadth" has a similar meaning. Maybe the article should be expanded that way, with the pubic hair variation being a section of it. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:17, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
        You read my mind, see Talk:Red cunt hair#Actual dimensions -- Chzz ► 17:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (edit conflict) Here's an idea. Maybe red cunt hair and cunt hair should both redirect to Hair (unit of measurement) and in that article, the use of "hair" (and all the variants) as a unit of measurement. (I see now that Equazcion suggested something similar above too) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, we may be on to something with that. "by a hair" shows 884,000 Google results, vs. "red cunt hair" at 15,000. I just hope there's some reliable material that examines those uses. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:37, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
  - I reckon RCH is specific and notable enough to merit an article, but yes, another on hair dimensions would support the article.
  - I am somewhat suprised how little research seems to be available regarding the ratio of pubic hair colour to width. What are research students coming to these days? -- Chzz ► 17:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring more to an article on the general use of hair as a metaphor for small width in phrases, which I think is notable and encompasses this use, rather than an examination of its actual physical dimensions. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:59, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
      - I agree that hair width is a subject worthy of an article, but I don't agree that applies directly to this discussion. Do you think that the article has now addressed the concerns listed? oh, and of course,
Keep WP:DICDEF seems vague to me - length of article seems about as important as anything else. I believe that the article is sufficiently well sourced to pass muster, and has possibilities for expansion. -- Chzz ► 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Wictionary--Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to Chzz above, no, I don't believe the N or DICDEF concerns have been addressed. There are a lot of refs now, but most of them are, as I said, examples of use in literature and slang dictionary listings, and don't constitute significant coverage as a topic. And the article is still just a dictionary definition. Aside from the one sentence on the probable origin in military slang, the article is devoted entirely to a long-winded guide to usage. It's now a good article, but still not an encyclopedia article, and might be better suited to Wiktionary. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:55, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. Most of the article is a long-winded repetition of the first's line "notional unit of infinitesimal measure", while the last two sentences are relational ("this word has a connection to another word") and a possible origin. Sounds like a dictionary definition to me. Hair already includes a link to wiktionary:hair, which includes a number of related terms (wiktionary:hairbreadth, etc) - BanyanTree 23:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is more than a WP:DICDEF, and seems to have sources beyond dictionaries. Yes, WEDONTLIKEIT, but not a reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which source in particular do you see as constituting significant coverage? The ones that aren't slang dictionaries are examples of use in literature. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:52, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Delete - this is simply an academic in-joke and has no notability (and I'm an inclusionist).DiverScout (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic example of WP:DICDEF, with no encyclopedic as opposed to lexicographic purpose. As Equazcion points out, all the cites we have are dictionaries defining it, and examples of its use: both lexicographic content, not encyclopedic. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, remove from Wikipedia. As others have noted, this is a phrase, not a topic, and once it's been defined, there really isn't anything more to say. (If, say, there was a rich literature of analyzing the phrase, with magazine articles and journal pieces and whatever, arguing about its origin, discussing the different ways it has been used historically, euphemisms, and so on, that would be different. But that's not the case here; it's just a phrase.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Hair (unit of measurement) and include all content on hair as a unit of measurement. Usage of hair in this way is a common colloquialism on both sides of the pond (does that make it not colloquial anymore? anyway, moving on).If the common hair article were created, moving all content from Red cunt hair would not be incredibly large/in need of its own article and would be more searchable/accessible to people looking for info on this. SMSpivey (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked for sources on that too, and while the Google search counts are a bit higher, I haven't found any sources that would support an article like that either. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:50, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Keep or Move to Hair...The subject of the article being what it is I think the article is actually well written and serious. There is more to be written: it just hasn't been written yet. It is a phrase that is used in Carpentry, Auto Mechanics, Masonry and the like where minute increments are required. "Move it just a cunt hair to the left". I'm sure it's not in the Carpenters Apprentice Manual or the Journeyman Mason's weekly magazine but it's use is not an in-joke. Its intended to clearly express a distance, infinitesimal as it may be. Not something I would say but if I heard it I would know exactly what was meant....and that is the point. It is more than a definition since it requires explanation...which the article provides. For instance, that no other color but 'red' is used. Why is that?--Buster7 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only problem is now I am going to have to explain to my wife why there is red cunt hair all over my watch list!!!!--Buster7 (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - responseBuster7, thanks for your insight, here and on my talk. Good luck with the wife; I'd ask you to help out with the search, but it does tend to cause problems with, ahem, 'false positives'! I'm trying to source more; it's tricky with a slang term. I'm fully in agreement that it requires more than a dictionary definition, and is precisely the sort of information that WP can provide that others cannot. As to why the colour Red, I believe - but am researching to verify - that red hair is more coarse than other hues.
  - I intend to do some off-line research through libraries to establish further examples (besides the one given) for usage outside of definition - i.e. further literary references etc. I would ask all to give this article some time to develop. I will also investigate the ideas regarding other hair measurements, hairs breadth, whisker, etc etc, as well as trying to provide comprehensive information on the true diameters of hair; that may require a further article or a merger as discussed above, but these matters could be addressed via the article talk page(s). Please don't rush to delete or transwiki unless there's a solid policy reason; there is no deadline. (Any help very welcome!) Regards, -- Chzz ► 13:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. Any German speakers, could do a bit of research about 'Schamhaaresbreite', which I'm given to understand is a translation, or similar idea? Thanks -- Chzz ► 14:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indescribably well cited for slang.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many reference does not equal good references. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:38, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Delete. We're trying to make an encyclpedia, not document every piece of slang in existence. Moreover, "dictionary definition" is listed in WP:NOT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and its brother Little red cunt hair. This term has been in use since at least the 1940s. With the good references, it seems like a given to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. The term is well-documented and verifiable, but has no chance of being evolved beyond a dicdef/stub. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cunt hair" as a measure already has a mention at Cunt#Others, so merge into that section. pablo_hablo. 23:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor:Pablomismo has a good, sensible solution of Merge to Cunt#Others. It can be "cultivated" there. --Buster7 (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It will need trimming though. pablo_hablo. 00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary. I think it should be allowed to grow as it will. We jest but it confirms that there is more here than meets the eye. The topic is more than a mere definition and is intitled to more than devaluation. It is knowledge and should be included in the Encyclopedia.--Buster7 (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Fletcher[edit]

No notability established, no reliable sources, no anything that would justify an encyclopedia article. Was prodded and that prod tag was removed by a serial deprodder (who might as well be a deprodding bot based upon his edits) with the justification "significant fan base", which certainly has not been documented. DreamGuy (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Extremely weak assertion of notability. §FreeRangeFrog 00:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FreeRangeFrog --Teancum (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Gosling[edit]

Yet another prodded article with prod notice (and reference tag) removed by a serial deprodder whose only explanation was "notable" with no explanation. Minor journalist, the few reliable sources prove his existence but do not give any sort of reason why he should have an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources prove notability.--Sloane (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots of details but no particular claim to notability, fails WP:BIO. If Esasus or anyone else can find enough refs to establish notability, I will gladly change my vote. §FreeRangeFrog 00:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent reliable sources to establish notability. Adam Zel (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of google hits (11,600) [9] and I have added external links to the article. Included in these are links to several articles that establish that Tony Gosling meets the General notability guideline per [[10]], that is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The articles [11] certainly meets this criteria, and among the 11,600 google hits there are more. Also the one-on-one interviews with Gosling meets the criteria for significant coverage, and his extensive list of published articles he has written [12] in evidence of a significant fan base following.Esasus (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic sluts[edit]

Non-notable website attempting to parlay a single media incident into notability (see WP:1E). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - To Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row, as Georgina Baillie does now. Undue weight given to an otherwise unremarkable website which is essentially claiming notability by association. §FreeRangeFrog 18:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above - that's the only reason why anyone's heard of the group. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If this site is non-notable, I think SuicideGirls should be considered for deletion also. Satanic Sluts have contributed more through DVD and alternative culture than the latter group. Even if the mainstream media have only heard of Satanic Sluts through the Georgina Baillie story, the name 'Satanic Sluts' was banded around in all the national newspapers in the UK for months, and on TV and even PM Gordon Brown was talking about them. They created more of a media storm than the Suicide Girls ever have, and this led them to television, such as Channel 5's documentary and Irish TVs The Late Late Show (see Wikipedia entry The Late Late Show (season 46), where more controversy ensued. Bello84 10:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC) — Bello84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect as noted. Wether B (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keepvery notable in the UK; touring, in the media etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs)
Keep Satanic sluts are well established within alternative culture and have produced not only dvd's but coffee table books and magazines. They also take an active role in the politics that surround alternative lifestyles/culture. Satanic sluts we well know enough in the main stream to perform at Glastonbury festival before the Brandgate media sensation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly sabrina London (talk • contribs) — Kelly sabrina London (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment if all this notability exists, please provide the citations to back it up. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further citations now added - please review page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bello84 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sadly, the citations added all fall into the "trivial" category as defined in WP:N. Specifically, they are trivial mentions in articles about other people, or mere listings in events calendars. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't you say the same for the Profumo Affair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.104.54 (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did a government minister resign because of the satanic sluts?? JamesBurns (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were two very significant resignations - one from the Head of BBC Radio 2 and another resignation from an important media personality, not to mention the suspension of another. The ramifications of which are still going on. The Satanic Sluts are part of social history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bello84 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SquarO[edit]

This article is advertising promotion of puzzle just some guy off the street came up with and nobody in the real world knows or cares about. No notability of puzzle attempted to be established, no reliable sources for anything. First ref goes to a link page that doesn't exist (and the page that replaced it is just a long listing of links -- fails the "nontrivial" coverage for a source -- and I don't even see SquarO on the new version of the links page of that site from browsing first bunch of link pages. Second ref is just the personal site of the guy who came up with it. I should also note that an editor removed the prod while giving no reason to do so. This editor has a history of such behavior. An admin should probably look into his actions since it appears to be an ongoing problem. DreamGuy (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22SquarO%22+%22Marc+Lebel%22&btnG=Search For a flash game, that isn't a lot of hits, and I don't see any legitimate review sites in that mix. And having just played the game, it is exactly like minesweeper, keeping the logic solving where you use the numbers, only all the numbers are reviewed. An interesting way of doing things. Dream Focus 16:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. --Sloane (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7, A1, you name it... Tone 22:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CACAW[edit]

WP:NAD applies here. Possibly made up WP:MADEUP. No sources. DFS454 (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a virtually empty and uninformative article. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Learning Platform[edit]

Even though it has references, there are hardly any google hits for this. Is it really notable? RenegadeMonster (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there are not a huge number of google hits, those that do exist indicate the term is used by more than one source. It doesn't seem to be so obscure as to be worthless as an article. Anaxial (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism, and the current text contains large swatches of "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.":

DLPs facilitate learning by producing a learner-centered experience in which instruction & feedback are moderated by the computer.

In addition, such experiences are more motivating to learners. Mihály Csíkszentmihályi has conducted extensive research on Flow, a state of complete immersion & intrinsic motivation. In his research he found numerous elements that contribute to this state of total immersion. Out of the nine components of Flow that Csikszentmihalyi discusses, four directly apply to DLPs and should be integrated into computer-based learning environments. These include (1) clear goals, (2) direct and immediate feedback, (3) a sense of personal control, and (4) a balance between ability level and challenge.

-- Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google returns 416 results, when the term is searched for in quotation marks. I look through it though, and it seems to be mostly used as an idiotic sales pitch. It is used to mean different things, than what is listed. And what the article actually mentions is something rather common. Past the answers to the test, and go onward to the next stage, get some wrong, and do that section over again, or get the lesson told in an easier manner, with more detail, or just more examples to go over. A lot of schools already use software like that, and have been for quite some time. They just don't have a name for it, that I'm aware of. Dream Focus 17:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Agreed on WP:NEO. I also came to the same conclusion via Google. The only sources that reference DLP directly are online universities and schools, and they all seem to use it as a marketing buzzword. I don't see how this is any different from computer-adaptive testing. Also agreed on WP:NONSENSE. "DLPs facilitate learning by producing a learner-centered experience in which instruction & feedback are moderated by the computer." Isn't that the definition of "teaching"? Human teachers don't just stand in front of a classroom and read facts from a textbook; they too "produce a learner-centered experience in which instruction & feedback are moderated." chuuumus (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Rawrd[edit]

Non-notable. Promotion. The second sentence of the lead says it all: He is probably most well known for his presence on the WWW. via his blogs and videos on sites such as Myspace and Youtube, known by his alias, DiageoLiam. The subject is just some guy who got some money to start a website that has gotten a tiny bit of coverage, mostly in blogs, but Rawrd himself has not. His credits as a model can't be substantiated and DK Model Management does not list him on their site (the other agency is NN and lists no credits). Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 19:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity page --- tries to use some press releases and Urban Dictionary (!!!) as reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vanity page and general failure to meet WP:BIO. Unless the subject or someone else can point to something that proves he is a noted human rights activist (as claimed) or notable for something other than the usual MySpace fame. §FreeRangeFrog 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete WP:CSD#G6 classic case. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sofie of Mecklenburg (disambiguation)[edit]

'Delete Dab page with only one entry. As (disambiguation) is in the title, it could only cause confusion to make this a redirect. Boleyn (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary disambig. There was previously a second redlink on it, but as WP:MOSDAB states we shouldn't have disambig pages with only one blue link anyway. JulesH (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Grave (Killswitch Engage album)[edit]

I nominate this page for deletion per WP:NALBUMS (Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the ((future-album)) tag. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article. (See also TenPoundHammer's Law.)). Cannibaloki 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We've already been through this once before. The title used for the article was a joke made by one of the band members in an interview. The actual album title hasn't been announced, and there's no release date or track listing. GeneralAtrocity (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Bugler[edit]

Was nominated for a CSDA7 speedy didn't fully qualify since at least two reliable sources are mentioned (even though the second appears dead to me). Might qualify for inclusion per WP:GNG, but either the missing source needs to be found or another one unearthed. I wasn't able to, but it warrants more than two eyes. Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google couldn't find any mention of him on the heraldexaminer.com site, and it also couldn't find any mentions of his career in the news. That leaves one reference, which isn't close to being enough to make him notable (yet). Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inadequate reliable sources for WP:GNG. Also does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. --Megaboz (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amira Ahmed[edit]

Notability not established. I can't find a single reference to a model named Amira Ahmed outside of facebook or similar sites. Closedmouth (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides being a model, there is no mention of any other activities to back up notability. --Roaring Siren (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No need to delete the page. She's an actual up and coming model. I'll start working on the article myself this week. Middayexpress (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest, but good luck finding references. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... nevermind. *sheepish grin* I thought an actual article could perhaps be salvaged here, but I've spent quite some time searching for legitimate sources on her and there really don't seem to be any besides forums and blogs. The modeling agency these forums say she is signed to is also no longer operational, so her model status in 2009 is anyone's guess. Anyone who knows differently, please feel free to correct me. Middayexpress (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no reliable sources covering her - Whpq (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources to establish notability. Adam Zel (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Colt Single Action Army. MBisanz ^talk 06:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USFA Custer Battlefield Gun[edit]

There are several articles on handguns manufactured by the U.S. Fire Arms Manufacturing Company; none of which are (IMHO) notable and all of which are variants of the Colt Single Action Army. The articles themselves appear to be advertising or fancruft, and as such I feel they are candidates for deletion.

The following articles also fall under the scope of this nomination:

Commander Zulu (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these are probably not individually notable, and I'd support deletion, but a preferable option might be to merge these (and possibly other articles) into an article on Colt reproductions. It seems that there are several companies whose entire business consists of manufacturing such Colt reproductions (Colt Single Action Army reproductions perhaps?), and so collectively the topic might be notable. cmadler (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cmadler. These guns are not notable individually, but I think they qualify as a group. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is an excellent suggestion. Having all the articles in one location would be more useful for readers.--E8 (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've got no problem with a merge to a Colt Single Action Army reproductions article; I'm just not sure if there are Wiki articles on many of the repros besides the USFA ones to actually put in the article. Commander Zulu (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem the question should be "Are there other reproductions?" not "Are there articles on other reproductions?". The lack of an article is a poor indication of the lack of a product, especially considering you just proposed these products' articles for deletion. – 74 00:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, there are plenty of reproductions out there; but I'm not really sure any of them are notable enough for their own articles, or even an article devoted to reproductions. The M1911 pistol article only has a couple of sentences acknowledging that there are "clone" pistols in existence, so I'm not sure if that sets a precedent on the issue or not. I don't mind what we do with the USFA gun articles as long as they don't remain in their current form, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as specified by cmadler. – 74 00:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no more encyclopedic value in this than there is in "collectable Elvis plate sets". --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can see them being briefly mentioned in the article for the company (USAA) as "Models Produced". I can also see a brief mention in a list in a "Replicas" section of Colt Single Action Army, but I see no reason to get into any detail on the individual models. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article almost reads like a sales brochure and seriously lacks notability. A single sentence in the USAA article should be enough. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Naumoski[edit]

A 14 year old professional player? WP:HOAX, and also, he apparently plays for a club in a non-notable league, the club not even having an article. No WP:ATHLETE or WP:BIO notability. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the BBC Freddy Adu signed a professional contract at age 14, so I wouldn't be so quick to call it a hoax based on his age. Also, I wouldn't rely on the existence of other Wikipedia articles to determine whether a team is notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google and LexisNexis both turned up dry. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though certainly not a hoax. A player of this name is registered with Altona Magic SC of the Victorian Premier League,[13] and the club did play the fixture mentioned in Naumoski's article, although I haven't yet found a team sheet for the game. However, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, the A-League is the only fully-professional league in Australia, so the player fails WP:ATHLETE. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, even if not a hoax. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Seems to fail WP:ATHLETE -- Alexf^(talk) 13:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the player is real, then he is definitely not notable. Giant Snowman 13:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC

(Posted by unknown) Well, I wasn't able to comment on this... I decided to edit the page, and all this about not being a notable club or something is rediculous as this club is in the Victorian Premier League and has made plenty of appearences in finals. So whoever has written this obviously hasn't done his/her homework. I advise the editors of wikipedia to search the club on the internet or the league VPL (Victorian Premier League) and check if the team exists. I would also like to note on the fact that an editor has doubted this player of his age which isn't a very effective factor of judging proffessional athletes as there has been football(soccer) players that have signed contracts with clubs in the most succesful football leagues from 15 years of age. So why should this player be doubted for playing with a 'club within Victoria.' This edit will probably be removed but i ask whoever it is to read this to consider the facts that i have stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.99.231 (talk • contribs)

You were - and are able to comment on this. Notability is strictly defined on Wikipedia, to stop people posting articles about themselves, their dogs and their dog's favourite toy. See WP:N. If a club plays at a sufficiently high level, a player automatically is deemed notable because of WP:ATHLETE. For lesser clubs, the player needs to meet the higher bar of notability outlined here. Sorry, it's confusing and difficult to grasp for newbies, but we were all newbies once. NB if you register for an account, it'll cost you nothing, take about a minute of your time and make communicating with you much easier. --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a hoax, but fails WP:ATHLETE Camw (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. SNOW... besides, a possible A1 as well Tone 22:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fruggleston[edit]

Unnotable neologism, deletion proposed per WP:MADEUP since no CSD criteria apply. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 10:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly something made up one day. ∗ \ / (⁂) 11:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Speedy delete? Wouldn't it qualify under "nonsense"? One single google result (completely unrelated).-Running On Brains 11:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CSD#Non-criteria, Neologisms. If not obviously ridiculous, new specialized terms should have a wider hearing. Obviously ridiculous is of course a matter of taste, but in the interest of not overdoing things, I figured AFD was the way to go. Go ahead and tag it for speedy if you feel it merits - you could perhaps even do so under WP:SNOW as there's no way this is not going to get deleted. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my view it could qualify as vandalism or a test page since it's the user's first edit. Since this is clearly a violation of WP:WINAD and WP:V I also see this snowballing in the near future. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3: misinformation. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Larkspur, Colorado. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larkspur Elementary[edit]

non-notable school Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article basically states the school exists, but I could find no information about the place except it was under lockdown when some bankrobbers hid nearby. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Larkspur, Colorado (population 234), if a source can be found for the content. The existence of an elementary school in this tiny community does not justify a separate article, but (if sourced) it's worth mentioning in the article about the community. --Orlady (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a website for the school and added a mention of its existence in the article about the community. --Orlady (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Larkspur, Colorado. Normally, I would suggest merging to the district. However, the Larkspur page badly needs content and an account of the siege episode would go nicely there. Certainly, there is no basis for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Larkspur, Colorado with suggested addition of education details to that article. Alansohn (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cice Rivera[edit]

IMDB shows her as having one role where she played a character with a name. The one book Amazon shows for sale was published by Authorhouse, a vanity press. I don't see how she meets the notability requirements for any of her claimed careers. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cice Rivera at IMDb
A Rainbow Behind a Shadow (Authorhouse, 2003) ISBN 978-1403301239
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 08:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also appears to be a bit of conflict of interest.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:SNOW, spam, etc Tone 22:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corpse Road (movie/series)[edit]

Non-Notable future film lacking article references and any references in Google. Nothing in IMDB to support pre-production or involvement by actor noted ttonyb1 (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Yes, I know there is an issue with the title - either I messed something up or I stepped on a bug. Hopefully someone will give me a hand to fix the/my issue.

Fixed it. Oh, and delete per lack of notability or any semblance of sources. Graymornings_(talk) 07:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable film project, no evidence production has started, release date unclear, thus it fails WP:NFF. Baileypalblue (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ((db-spam)) would have been easier. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've tried to make it easier. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasons plus the problems with the copyright that's asserted in the body of the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete lack of third-party sources that could establish notability; web search reveals nothing that could help, either. §FreeRangeFrog 18:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Only one vote so far for "speedy delete", so I'll remove the speedy tag, but if you guys change your mind and want to speedy, I'll be happy to do it. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Concur with Speedy Deletion. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I also agree with a speedy - there's no assertion of notability in the article. Graymornings_(talk) 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tveen[edit]

Stub about a historical city, but my searches would suggest that none of the historic capitals of Armenia went by this name, nor was this the name of any Armenian city. I suppose in good faith, this could be an honest mispelling (Dvin, possibly?) Someguy1221 (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm also not finding any evidence of this as a historic capital. The Dvin mis-spelling theory is an interesting one, but i don't think it merits a redirect even if that's what the page creator was after. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything either. If it was an Armenian capitol, surely it would at least come up on g-books, but nothing shows up. --Oakshade (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dvin as an alternate spelling. Because the Armenian language uses a proprietary alphabet, such alternate spellings in the Latin alphabet should be expected. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AEACGlobal Toolbar[edit]

Non-notable Web browser toolbar. No outside sources. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable software. The "author" didn't even develop this; they created it using a toolbar-building website. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - browser add-on with no claim of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable (fails WP:N) software article created by single-issue user - potential advert/spam. Dialectric (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - created 2009 February 19 - not yet notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable.Unionsoap (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paddock Paradise[edit]

Essentially spam for a non-notable book. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One Google hit only for some satan worshipper LetsdrinkTea 21:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wha...? flaming lawyer 23:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first I thought this was a page about some new horse treatment called "paddock paradise," but now I see that it's actually about a book. A non-notable book, mind you. flaming lawyer 23:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Not sure what the hostility is about! Paddock Paradise IS a widely used term in the 'barefoot horse community' and is a well known concept on natural horse boarding. It has a specific meaning and should not be deleted just because you may not be aware of it. Paddock Paradise is a concept that was written about in a book by the same title but the term is NOT about the book. Within the horse world, it is a notable book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustang Roll (talk • contribs) 04:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you enter "Paddock Paradise" www.Google.com, you get the following

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 353,000 for paddock paradise. (0.20 seconds)

Search ResultsPaddock ParadisePaddock Paradise, the name of Jaime Jackson's latest book, is a natural way of horse keeping that mimics the herd life of wild horses. ... thenaturalhoof.homestead.com/PaddockParadise.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Paddock Paradise & Mustang MountainJaime Jackason’s concept of ‘Paddock Paradise’ has started a new way of looking at horsekeeping and you can find his link in the sidebar on the right. ... wildhooves.wordpress.com/ - 52k - Cached - Similar pages Amazon.com: Paddock Paradise: A Guide to Natural Horse Boarding ...The paddock paradise track system encourages horse to move around more than the alternatives of ... Paddock Paradise is a book all horse owners should read. ... www.amazon.com/Paddock-Paradise-Guide-Natural-Boarding/dp/0965800784 - 266k - Cached - Similar pages PADDOCK PARADISEYou can do tests runs by diverting your horses into short veins or spurs and see how they do.’ Jaime Jackson. Paddock Paradise ... www.right2remainshoeless.com/html/paddock_paradise.html - 30k - Cached - Similar pages Paddock ParadiseThis website is dedicated to horses everywhere who suffer the injustices of unnatural confinement. coming soon. PADDOCK PARADISE. www.paddockparadise.com/ - 3k - Cached - Similar pages Paddock Paradise Questions, Answers ideas and solutions.Paddock Paradise Questions & Answers - A page full of questions and answers on Paddock Paradise. www.successful-natural-horsecare.com/paddock-paradise-questions.html - 41k - Cached - Similar pages France and The Unknown: My Paddock ParadiseSep 12, 2008 ... The paddock paradise that I’m trying to create, can finally start working properly. It has taken a long time to find hay here in our new ... franceandtheunknown.blogspot.com/2008/09/my-paddock-paradise.html - 151k - Cached - Similar pages petArtistWithPeaches horse blog » Peastone Gravel and Paddock ...The track I made a la Jaime Jackson’s Paddock Paradise (PADDOCK PARADISE POST) has proved a very convenient way to manage the pasture AND give our horse ... portraitswithhorses.com/blog/2007/08/18/peastone-gravel-and-paddock-paradise-use/ - 53k - Cached - Similar pages Wake up to Welfare | Paddock Paradise - Bitless Bridle™ UKPaddock Paradise on Right2remainshoeless website "A track system is a realistic alternative for winter turnout in situations where horses are otherwise kept ... www.bitlessbridle.co.uk/articles/wake-up-to-welfare.php - 21k - Cached - Similar pages The Horse's Hoof: Paddock ParadiseBased on Jackson's legendary research on wild horses, Paddock Paradise is a ... The premise of Paddock Paradise is to stimulate horses to behave and move ... www.thehorseshoof.com/book_pp.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pagesMustang Roll (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not about a book, but about a concept of horse boarding and strategies for land use layout/planning/design that simulates the horses' natural environs - seems to be the opposite of "fenced acreage". Subject seems notable within the specialized community of horse lovers, many references to 3rd party independent sources in article, I dont have online access and cannot check, but found additional references corroborating the article's claims of notability
- Copy of issue of The Horse Hoof magazine (yes! such a magazine exists), mentions concept and book
- - Università di Bologna, Italy, Thesis for degree in Veterinary Medicine , mentions the concept (and the book)

I only searched for the book title, and for a June 2007 book release this is not so bad. Any concerns of advertising could be fixed. I'm puzzled by "One Google hit only for some satan worshipper" - I get loads of hits ("paddock paradise" gives 3.5k hits), mostly in blogs etc - so it is a concept being discussed in those circles. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm prepared to accept that this is a legitimate article on a niche but potentially notable subject, current article quality aside. Article author has created several other articles on similar subjects, so maybe a merge would be appropriate if that wasn't the case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect with Jaime Jackson. It appears that each of us has our own Google; when I try the search, I get around 3100 hits. However, when I try the same search but excluding the author's name, the numbers go way down—which tells me that it's his term, and it makes the most sense in the context of his article. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 05:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 06:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete but this article needs sources (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdirahman bin Isma'il al-Jabarti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Abdirahman bin Isma'il al-Jabarti

Fails wp:N Oo7565 (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently an important semi-mythical / historical figure in Somalia. See Ali Jimale Ahmed The Invention of Somalia ISBN 0932415997 as an example of a source describing the story.JulesH (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JulesH. Edward321 (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JulesH. Middayexpress (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Super Taranta!. MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supertheory of Supereverything[edit]

Contains an editor's original research into the meaning of copyrighted song lyrics Astronaut (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for obvious reasons, as stated by editor and nominator. Drmies (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Taranta! (this non-notable single's album) per WP:NSONGS. I have deleted the lyrics section as copyvio, copying the entire lyrics verbatim is not fair use even when a few notes have been added on the margins. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves just a lead paragraph that says nothing other than it is a song on the album, and the intro to the now deleted lyrics section with the unreferenced comment: "the lyrics are believed to be anti-religious with numerous references that are not self-explanatory". IMHO, still a delete instead of a redirect. Astronaut (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable song WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Fleming (CPA)[edit]

Listed as non-notable since July 2008, no in-links. Brianhe (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Too many problems with the article, and the opening sentences are not even referenced. Versus22_talk 05:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - also, it most likely fails WP:N and WP:V. Versus22_talk 05:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single hit on Google News for this person, even without the middle initial. Drmies (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable, independent sources to establish notability. Reads like it was written by the subject as well. Adam Zel (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welching Day[edit]

Non-notable pseudo-holiday and probable WP:HOAX. I would invoke WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms as reasons to delete. --Dynaflow babble 06:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yellowweasel (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I doubt it's a hoax; I'm sure it's something the mentioned people really made up one day in school. Powers ^T 15:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete (at least yet) More information and citations will be added soon. This has actually taken off where I am from and there is a serious movement towards legitimizing this as a local holiday. I have been trying to get the dates relevent to its history, including dates of newspaper articles and even a TV news report. There are Wikipedia pages referencing fictional legal defense strategies from South Park episodes so I feel that if I can provide these references it is equally valid (at least). A parallel could be drawn to Festivus from Seinfeld as well (on a much smaller scale of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3L3373d (talk • contribs)

Usually it's best to find sources first, then write the article, to avoid exactly this sort of situation. If the article is deleted, you can have it moved to your userspace so you can work on it, then move it back when it's sufficiently sourced. Powers ^T 01:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, I really appreciate it. I will continue to source info, and learn the Wiki system. Its nice to get some constructive feedback. Thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3L3373d (talk • contribs) 06:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds made up (WP:HOAX), turns up nothing on Google less the very article in question, not sourced, no reliable sources, at this point it may as well be a neologism and original research, and by proponent's own claims it is local in scope (WP:Local)Troyster87 (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aunt Linda: Oh pleeeease. A hoax. Drmies (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: HOAX. No web mentions of this "holiday" under any of its supposed names, no such facebook group, no trace of the facebook quote anywhere. The SPA page creator claimed five days ago that sources were forthcoming, but none have been produced. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Welching Day (also known as Welcher's Day, and Better Thursday) came about as the direct result of the comic escapades of William Huxtable Jr, Brian D.C. Smith, and David B. Deschamps while in Lethbridge Alberta, Canada." A non-existent Facebook group is the major source cited. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Palmer[edit]

Article makes several claims to notability, but none of them seem anywhere close to fulfilling the criteria at WP:BIO. It claims his songs have been heard "in Scandinavia, across North America, and in the Caribbean during the St. Lucia Country Music Festival." Only the last item is a real claim, and I can find nothing about this festival except in connection with him. His one book was published by vanity press iUniverse. He hosts a syndicated radio show which is "on hiatus." His "political career" consisted of announcing a run for city council then changing his mind. He apparently has done some environmental work that was "accessed thousands of times from inside Ottawa City Hall," but it's all worded very vaguely and doesn't seem notable at all. Lastly, he also coined a word on the Internet. Even taken as a whole, these achievements don't seem anywhere near our notability criteria. This article reads like a resume more than anything else, especially as it includes information on things like which colleges he got into. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~A Google search does verify Editor:Clarks claims. Article's purpose may be self satisfaction. Too ambiguous and vague. Unless new infomation is added, as of now, I would say...Delete~~--Buster7 (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)...My initial DELETE was since it looked like the article was self composed (I admit I failed to check history)..but now that Editor:BMW has staightened that out, I would like to withdraw my support of deleting. That is unless BMW IS John R Palmer????[reply]

Delete. There are no sources supporting the claims in the article or establishing notability. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (original editor) This is an article that I first started ages ago, and yes became a bit of a pet project. In 2003 when Mr. Palmer actually ran for city Council against the toughest opponent in the city, I was a senior student in journalism. The City of Ottawa website (a city of almost a million people) makes numerous mentions. A simple g-search will turn up plenty of hits. I have slowly added ref's from the local papers as I can find them - unfortunately, the journalism databases do not always hold them. The Ottawa Citizen (the large city newspaper) has featured him in relation to the 2003 election, his work on Ottawa Transit. Canada's National Broadcaster, CBC also has a few hits. He actually wrote articles for the Nepean This Week newspaper. iUniverse is, according to the New York Times, not and "vanity press". A good number of wikilinks. Sure, I probably threw some cruft into the article that I was able to glean through small articles, internet searches, and *gasp* press conferences where I was able to ask questions in open forums. As Mr. Palmer sells the full rights to his songs, I was not even permitted to list the ones you might have heard on the radio on the page - this is not something I can fix easily. Before this becomes WP:TLDNR, I wanted to clarify some of the misinformation above. Many other editors have added and edited this article over the past 6 years or so. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 07:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iUniverse is a print-on-demand self-publisher who charges an upfront fee to the author for publication. That is the definition of a vanity press. And I still don't think losing (by a lot) in a city council race is grounds for political notability. And finally, with a name this common, Google hits really aren't meaningful at all. Even in the first few pages of results for "john r. palmer," many are clearly not him. I'm still not seeing non-trivial coverage from a variety of sources. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, searching for "john palmer" and "john r. palmer" restricted to ottawa.ca returned only items about the results of his city council election bid and this, which mentions him only in one sentence. I'm not seeing "numerous mentions" here. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the terminology is slightly more nuanced. See this page for more details. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting link, thanks. I guess by those definitions they are a "subsidy publisher" then. At any rate, the point is that they are not a traditional selective publisher and simply having had a book published by them is not any indication of the book's notability even on a very minimal level. -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article content and references do not establish evidence of life achievements that indicate an encyclopedia article is warranted. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I've taken into account both sides of the argument here. I've taken into account the SPAs, and I've weighed them appropriately. It's clear from the consensus shown here that MagicView is not notable enough for its own article. X clamation point 01:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MagicView[edit]

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)).

Previously G11 (by FreeRangeFrog YSWT (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)) speedy recreated with essentially the same content. This is basically an advertisement (accord. FreeRangeFrog YSWT (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)) for the subject plugin/extension, with no claims of notability beyond simply existing. §FreeRangeFrog 05:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@FREERANGEFROG: What is your issue ? First, one user who was involved in stopping you from improperly getting another article deleted edited their opinion here from neutral to 'keep'. You then immediately undid their edit so it appeared they were still neutral.

Now, I have made a very detailed reply to Dori, including listing specific web reference examples, and very specific wikipedia policy quotes, and then you tried to do the same trick. Dude or dudette, you have some issues. Please do not delete my comments. If you have something to say, please do, but please do not vandalize what others have written. I am now the second person you've done this to. YSWT (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not. What I did was revert text inserted into already existing comments (including an ((spa)) tag), which is against the accepted talk page practices. In any case, the IP address that graced the discussion with a "keep" vote seems to be dedicated to inserting links to your article on other articles. I'm sure the relationship between "them" and you could be established quickly if I actually thought it would make any difference whatsoever to the outcome of this discussion. §FreeRangeFrog 18:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just clicked on the editor's link and they are not "dedicated to inserting links" in other articles. They added a single, one word reference to the article in a multi-reference list. YSWT (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the article "basically an advertisement" 'as compared to similar articles about similar software. Microsoft Word Viewer is an analagous product, essentially a viewer for particular data formats. How -- if at all-- does this article differ from the Microsoft Word Viewer article such that this article is "basically an advertisement" ?

Moreover, what, *if any* are the objective criteria you applied to label the article "basically an advertisement" ? YSWT (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Criteria are listed in 'Overview of the AFD deletion process' as "three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace.

If the article were written as an 'advertisement' to sell something, Neutral point of view would be issue. Since the article was taken both in form and content and WORDING directly from another neutral article along similar subject, NOTHING in the article is not neutral. everything is fact based, and the facts selected were the facts another author selected for a different software. (just correct facts inserted, eg., which data formats can be viewed).

The article just cites to listed references and explains WHAT the software is.

Original research is not an issue, nor is copyright violation.

Article was carefully supported by references for full verifiability of the content, and to allow further research by those interested/researching the subject. YSWT (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, there are references; no, they are not independent references. I couldn't find any, inside or outside the article. To the article's defender: WP:GNG always applies. Drmies (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. Drmies complains "couldn't find any [independent references], inside or outside the article."

1. Drmies, what in the world is an 'independent reference' to your view ? Why do you wholly ignore the fact that for many/most software articles the references are to the software's (or hardware's) offical spec/information sheets and faqs.

If you would have looked OBJECTIVELY you would have seen that the MS Viewer article (which was the template for this one) has multiple references to MicroSoft's own website, and only a single external.

EDIT: now understand that Drmies isn't talking about references for the information provided by the article, but references tho establish internet buzz about the topic. deleted prior response and point to discussion below. YSWT (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as for "WP:GNG always applies. " you might go and look at that closely. "Notability" in that context does *not* relate to content. It relates to whether an article should stand on its own as a separate article in wikipedia. Specifically from your reference "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not regulate the content of articles, except for lists of people[10]. Instead, various content policies govern article content."

Articles discussing specific software specifications are by and large in wikipedia each treated in a separate article. Probably this is best to *avoid* advertisements. For example, if you're point is the software article isn't "Notable" and thus should be included in another article on a broader topic, (again 'Notability' is NOT to censor content, but to determine what should be in discreet articles) then my own view is that turns software articles into adverts. When you place a particular program's specs and info INSIDE ANOTHER TOPIC that seems to me, personally, to be intrusive.

Seems best-- and farthest as possible from advertising, to keep software in its own article, where only someone looking to find info on that specific software will read.

For advertising purposes seems MUCH better to stick software info in some other highly read topic, hoping to introduce the software to new users. Since that is *not* the purpose here, does not seem helpful or appropriate.

By keeping the software as its own wikipedia entry, the info/specs/reference material is accessible TO THOSE LOOKING FOR IT, but is not 'thrust' upon those interested in other topics, etc. Ie. keeping the software to its own article keeps it a reference item.

Again, if this was not clear-- 'Notability' is NOT a criteria to censor content (at least about places, software, wildlife, etc) from wikipedia. It is a criteria for deciding if info should be in its own article. Anyhow. YSWT (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has specifically asked, and is working to INCREASE the scope of the software articles. Specifically seeking to affirmatively increase both the "quality and quantity of information about computing technology available on Wikipedia" and specifically including articles on software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YSWT (talk • contribs) 07:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think I'm the one who does the complaining here. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah i think we were talking past each other. I thought you were saying the article wasn't a good one because there were no references to the information provided. Now I understand that concept of references is different than you mean when you talk about references. You mean internet buzz. Ie. "wikipedia articles have lot of verifiable references" not like the actual material is referenced, but like wikipedia articles just repeat subjects that lots of other websites talk about. Nothing written directed at you personally, hope that's mutual. YSWT (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some information is obviously best sourced from spec sheets or other places related to the creators but to be considered notable a topic has to be covered by someone else than the creators. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: For SOFTWARE the developer is most likely the most credible source of info. If the developer is shown by external references to be reliable, for SOFTWARE it makes sense to allow the developer as source. For example, microsoft website should be legitimate source for microsoft products. This is exactly the case with the template used to create this article, [Microsoft Word Viewer]. If google developer of subject software, is clearly actual, credible, reliable source. I understand this is not the *general* rule for reliability, nor should it be. But it seems to be the norm with existing articles on software, and makes sense for SOFTWARE topics. YSWT (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable software add-on, unless reliable, independent sources can be found. I've had a go, but a determined Google search doesn't bring back anything that near half-way fulfills the criteria. Whilst comparisons are not to be encouraged in deletion discussions (and despite the fact that using Google to prove a point is, well, dodgy), I think that comparing that search to this one should give those likening this software to MS Word Viewer considerable pause for thought. If this software becomes as widely-used and notable then sources should not be an issue. Until then, however, I don't think it warrants an article. one brave monkey 15:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot find any reliable sources (note: the product's website, its own docs nor Internet forums are considered reliable secondary sources) that can establish notability of this software. And yes, lack of notability is a reason for deletion per the deletion policy. MuZemike 22:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability for this article is not presumed from internet 'buzz' on the topic. Instead, as is appropriate when there is no presumption of notability, consensus on notability for this article is established by consideration of the content of the article.YSWT (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like there is some confusion about sources and reliability of sources for information (clearly not an issue here-- the information presented is fully documented by appropriate sources, just like the MS Viewer) and reliable sources for establishing notability. At his point, the issue seems to be about 'Notability'. Ie., Keep the article stand alone as an article, or should it be merged into another article. Notably, no one has suggested any other more appropriate article.

Something important here ---> Should Wikipedia be a reflection of pop culture, or a serious information source ? I find it very telling that no one has suggested information that might be added, or that would impact on the 'notability' issue. What if the software is unique or revolutionary in some way. What if it reflects important historical developments in the evolution of software ? Etc.

The wiki guidelines are helpful with this issue "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Whilst guidance on notability is useful, it is intended as a rule of thumb, and not the only consideration in a debate. Rather, the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating specifically to that content and subject."

Almost every anti-'Keep' comment falls to some kind of lower level 'guardianship' of pop culture current for the wiki. Pop culture is 'presumed' to be notable, that doesn't mean that subjects not part of pop culture are not notable. It means that when subjects are not part of pop culture (not a bunch of pages when googled, etc.) the subject NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED. Everyone in the anti-Keep line here seems to have totally skipped that. There has been *no* discussion abour tthe specific content and subject of the article. Instead of the "contents and subject of the article" being the frame of the debate AS REQUIRED BY WIKI GUIDELINES, the debate has been solely that the subject is not pop.

The topic has not received huge coverage outside of narrow, specialized technical forums. Therefore there is no PRESUMPTION of notability. All of the nay-sayers have to this point missed the point. For their analysis, No significant coverage in reliable sources = not notable = delete. That analysis is not healthy for wiki, and is contrary to the express wiki guidelines.

Maybe it is easier doing a google and finding X # of results and declaring 'not notable'. But this is very bad for wikipedia. What is called for is "the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating specifically to that content and subject".

Determining if software is notable depends upon the purpose/use of the software. Ie. a minor 'player' in a larger field may not be notable, but a key 'player' in a smaller field sure is. If the program were a word processor, certainly agree, compared to word and open office may not be notable. But as a multi-media clipper and outliner, seems that based on wikipedia's current content, the software is the industry leader. Ie. this program is the 'MS Word' of technical outlining media clipping/viewing.

Keep So, hoping to help frame constructive discussion/argument as to notability, note that the software is co-software, requiring another program to work in conjunction with it. (Nothing about that should make a program less notable, it is merely a technical detail of use. In fact, symbiotic programming has *NO ARTICLES* that I could find in wikipedia. This article in that respect is notable. (Although the subject should be fleshed out in the text).) The co-program is a technical outliner, a successor to the outliner Grandview, and for which no successor has yet come to market. With the co-program a platform for technical clipping and outlining of html/pdf/djvu/etc formats becomes possible. How many people does that have to be important to in order to be notable ? How much technical innovation is necessary for notability ? KEEPING IN MIND THAT NOTABILITY DOES NOT MEAN POPULARITY. Would be interesting or useful to hear perspectives on that etc. Hearing that the software doesn't have buzz so not right for wikipedia, is sort of disappointing. Edited on 3/3 changing from just general comment to adding voice to keep article after re-reading article as modified in current state. 84.109.107.68 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC) — 84.109.107.68 (talk • contribs) has made prior edits to EccoPro, Alan Lakein, and GoBinder topics. Edit2: when updated my comment to 'Keep' it was promptly deleted by FreeRangeFrog with a side comment about me correcting the incorrect tag he (?) added "few or no other edits" with the preceding text. I've just read the link and it is clear that both adding the tag and the fairly rude way myself and other 'non-professional' posters have been treated is a violation of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. It was only by chance that I came back to the page and saw my voice for keeping the article was vandalized and reverted to my original general comment-- actively concealing what I actually had contributed . I took my time to contribute and FreeRangeFrog just deleted it. I find that extremely rude. If I removed some kind of tag that you feel is so important, you could have just added the tag back in. [reply]

- I was under the mistaken (?) impression that FreeRangeFrog (who if I understand correctly posted this article for deletion) was an editor. After looking at his page it seems that is not true, and also that he uses various aliases (?). I'm no wiki expert to this could be all wrong-- please correct me if it is. If you're not an editor FreeRangeFrog you've got some serious issues, and a lot of nerve deleting my contribution to this discussion because I correct the incorrect tag you posted. (If you are an editor, it seems very clear you could have just re-inserted the tag and explained the issue politely.) The article you're trying to delete is 100% legitimate, just like my comment was. I also realized from looking at your post that it was you who previously tried unsuccessfully to delete the Alan Lakein wiki page, and that I also commented in favor of keeping. TO ANY ACTUAL EDITOR WHO REVIEWS THIS: Please keep this article. 84.109.107.68 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Hello. I am not an editor or contributor to wikipedia. I am just someone who enjoys it and uses it a lot. If my voice has any weight here, I've decided to speak up. I am attorney in Dallas and was looking for information on legal outliners and ended up on the magicecco page. Out of curiousity I ended up here. I am not a wiki expert, just a user. I don't use wikipedia to summarize what I can find at google. I use wikipedia as a reference site. I want wikipedia to have as many details about as many refined subjects as possible. Removing information because you can't find it on google sounds insane to me. The article wasn't particularly exiciting but it didn't seem like an advertisement. It explained what the program is and gave specific even helpful information. The article subject is 'noteworthy: worthy of notice' but not 'celebrated: widely known and esteemed'. I'd rather find on Wikipedia more of the the former and less of the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.91.140 (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC) — 70.251.91.140 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Disregard apparent single-purpose accounts and unregistered users.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment so you're telling everyone that comes here via actually using wikipedia to keep their thoughts to themselves ?? Maybe i'm just not in the culture, but that seems sort of rude, and makes the perspectives in the discussion potentially unbalanced. If there were just 'votes' (without any reasoning or discussion) posted from non-users ok disregard. But if someone takes the time to express their thoughts why disregard what they have to say just because they're an actual, as opposed to registered user ? And likely you feel your 'vote' (without any reasoning or discussion) should be 'counted' because you're a registered user.YSWT (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I searched for references to the product. And once you take away message board postings and wikipedia clones, you're left with this: nothing at all. I didn't think that it was possible to have an app where no bloggers have ever written about it. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DoriSmith and others. Your argument is 'no external buzz on this so delete'. That is *not* the wikipedia guideline. The issue isn't buzz, whether bloggers write about it (although buzz leads to a PRESUMPTION of notability) the issue is CONTENT. The subject is OUTLINING/CLIPPING software. Is this program NOTABLE in that field ?

Other WIKIPEDIA entries for that field include Acta (software) include DEVONthink, Grandview (software), Leo (text editor), MORE (application), My Yellow Notepad, and MyInfo. EccoMV is significant and notable in that unlike all of those other software programs (existing wikipedia articles-- please look to see what makes up the 'outliner' field, EccoMV is a technical outliner, not a treeview control. There is no buzz on My Yellow Notepad. There are no blogs on it. But it is in wikipedia AND SHOULD BE. If you remove the references to the outliners listed here wikipedia would essentially have none left. YSWT (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not my argument at all (nice straw man, though). My argument was that there are no reliable sources. Not a single one. And that while researching that, I was surprised to find that—on an AFD with this much discussion—there weren't even any unreliable sources. There is nothing. Therefore:

That means it's non-notable, and so, easily grounds for deletion.

Not finding an article in a google search does not establish non-notabilty, at least according to wikipedia guidelines. There are 30,000+ results for "MagicView Software", you could not have in this time period reviewed each one to determine.YSWT (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no reliable sources, then there is nothing to base any article content on. For those of you saying, "but what about the content?"—why? If there are no sources, there should be no content. Nothing in the is article is from a reliable verifiable source. And that, in itself, is grounds for deletion. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems early to come to that conclusion. Also, a search of google is not the way to determine the question, that is my point.

Dori, one of us is *very* very confused about what 'reliable sources' means and relates to. Let's see if we can figure it out. If you read the link you included you'll see "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That means the CONTENT of an article should rely on reliable published sources of information.

There are 10 cited sources in the article. For example, "http://www.uri.edu/library/staff_pages/kinnie/lib120/info_org.html" is cited as the source of the statement "...to retrieve the information you need, it's really important to know how the information is organized. Organization provides access to information or a collection." Are you asserting that in your opinion www.uri.edu is somehow not a source or a 'reliable source' ?

Or, more likely, perhaps you're confused as to the link you included. Perhaps you're thinking that link refers to internet pages that have discussed the same topic as discussed in the article ? Hopefully as explain pretty clearly in this discussion, a lot of internet 'buzz' about a topic creates a "presumption" that an article is notable. What does that mean ? The reverse is NOT true. Lack of buzz does not raise a presumption that the subject is not notable. Moreover, presumptions are only a starting point, not an ending point.

You, and a few others have gotten into your head that wikipedia is an abstract of the web-- a listing only of subjects that have already been raised in webpages indexed by google. Technically if you actually search for "MagicView software" without limiting the results, you'll find that magicview has been discussed in specialized technical forums. So you're wanting wikipedia not only to be just an abstract of webpages on the net, but only of some limited subset of those pages. Ok.

Dori, where do you find support for your position that if a subject does have sufficient buzz on the 'approved list' of google search result pages, that WHATEVER the content is, wikipedia is the wrong place for it. Please, citing to the specific language you're relying on for that position would be very helpful.

And just to be clear we're understanding eachother, your position to 'delete' isn't based on the content of the article, its based exclusively on your understanding that a subject not mentioned on the web except in technical discussion forms or lists is for that reason automatically prohibited from being the subject of a wikipedia article.

if you'll look at Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions you might see that "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet."

the, if you'll look at Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#What_is_deletion_for.3F you'll see that "some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept".

while you're looking you might see that "Notability: Wikipedia guidelines on minimal standards of importance exist for *some* types of topics, including biographies of living people, articles about music or musicians, companies and corporations, fictional topics, and articles about web-specific content. " This article is about OUTLINING SOFTWARE. it is not about a living person, music, companies, fictional topics or web-specific content.

finally, aside from the huge issue about thinking that 'no web references = no wikipedia article' being unhealthy for wikipedia, your search methodology isn't correct for the topic. Thousands of people haven't blogged eccoMV, but the program and/or its precusor and/or references to the software company in reference to the software *do* appear on the web. Using Yahoo, we find references spanning several YEARS on an independent website http://tpemurphy.com/links/?m=200805 ; an expert's webpage on PIMs makes several mentions at http://fredshack.com/docs/pim.html ; Comes up in a blog on note taking at http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2004/08/15/taking-notes/ ; is listed as a PIM by CNET at http://www.cnet.com/topic-software/personal-information-manager.html?s=20&l=20 ; references at the official http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ecco_pro/ forum ; shows up as concept mapping and outliner links from 2007 at http://www.netvouz.com/url/27571960d6ca308cb1dd3c5a5c7b786d ; etc. Again "some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept". YSWT (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

errr, the independient website is a list of links in a blog, the PIM's expert page is about Ecco and not about the Magic View plugin, the netvouz page is just the online bookmarks uploaded by someone to a del.icio.us-type website, the cnet link is a list of products avilable for download. All those links fail the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines, specially blogs and any unpublished stuff (I mean not published in magazines or newspapers).

You need to find stuff like press reports, in Wired (magazine) for example, statements by persons that are famous in programming, books, reviews (and I mean real reviews dealing with the software, not one link on a list of links, and not a passing mention when listing examples of a type of software), etc. That's the stuff that you can use to demonstrate notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enric. Fantastic, let's discuss your input. [small factual error in your comment the PIM's expert page, it does include direct reference to the subject ('eccomagic' software is proto-version of software in article).] The key issue is *where specifically* would YOU expect to find a review of the software for this technical area, technical outlining. The only technical outliner still being used today is ecco_pro, and reviews/discussions take place not in 'popular' press, but in the ecco_pro user group, around in various incarnations for about a decade and a half. That is where the program has been reviewed, discussed, etc. Also on the eccomagic forums, but clearly that is not an 'independent' reference. The program subject of this article (and another, 'the extension') is extremely notable and within that specialized community.

If someone is seeking knowledge about technical outlining, or seeking reference or understanding about the subject, the subject of this article is notable and important to them. You likely don't use djvu documents. If you did, or if you wanted to find out about manipulation of djvu documents (how to manipulate them in an outline) this subject would be important to you also. But programs that provide djvu functionality are not generally covered in the popular press, not even the popular tech press.

I believe I've demonstrated that where'd you expect to find reference to *this subject* there is. If you have argument or suggestion as to where you'd expect to find reference to *this subject* (and not subjects GENERALLY), that is important. Again, if *this subject* would be expected to be covered in source X, and it isn't, that *would be* evidence on notability. Since I could find no coverage in 'Wired' for technical software similarly specialized as this (ie. without mass marked appeal or impact) would not expect Wired to write about this software either. Ie. Wired explains "Your search - "outlining software" - did not match any documents". It has no match for EccoPro, either. (although Ecco the dolphin yes). So since Wired does not deal with this subject generally, lack of specific reference in Wired about the subject of this article is not evidence as to notability.YSWT (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, if there is no coverture outside the Eccopro community, then it's failing the WP:N guideline requirements for having its own article, and should be simply deleted or redirected to Ecco Pro, as something only notable inside that subject.

Also, Ecco Pro does get a passing mention in Wired: "(...) tools to organize information-overloaded professional and personal lives, (...) a crowded field, with competitors including Microsoft Outlook, Backpack, Entourage, Zoot and Ecco Pro, another discontinued piece of software that still has a loyal following." [14] --Enric Naval (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that fact certain subjects are discussed with a certain community mean all those subjects belong in the same encyclopedic article ? There are a very finite set of complex math discussion forums, does that mean all math related subjects belong in the same article ? There is a special rule establishing FOR THAT COMMUNITY what the credible reference sources are. My vote is to allow discreet subjects to have discreet articles, even if the subject is talked about primarily only within a distict community. Ie. the same community can have discussions on more than a single subject.

if you're call is that all subjects discussed in any discreet community should be limited to a single article, I don't agree with that, but the position is relevant. (1) Is that what you're saying ? (2) Is there any way to get others to discuss that to develop a consensus on it ?

If relevant, for SOFTWARE (not necessarily other topics) my suggestion (and hopefully consensus can be found one way or the other) is that one program should not be the subject of another's article. One primary reason for that is to avoid using the wiki as an advertising forum. If one program is relevant to another, my suggestion is that a link to a second article is appropriate so that those who want to know more about the second program *can* access that reference, but are not forced to (by having the two subjects merged into one.)

Further rational for my suggestion on that is that the information in this article, such that magicview supports "pdf, dot, rtf, wri, txt, htm, html, mht, mhtml, xml, jpeg, png, gif, bmp, and hta" formats, etc., might be of interest to someone researching the magicview software, but would not seem to be generally of interest to someone researching the eccopro topic. That's just my view, and certainly interested to hear your view on it, and maybe others will contribute to arrive at some consensus. YSWT (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just making a general comment on software that only gets reported on a small community. Of course, if it was to be merged and redirected (which probably won't, since it will probably just be deleted) then it would be reduced to a mention like: "List of plugins: (...) MagicView: Allows to do X and Y." If it gets deleted, then it will just be deleted from the articles as a non-notable plugin, since wikipedia is not a directory of stuff, so it's not going to list every non-notable plugin for a certain product, and much less list it in general lists of software as if it was a separate product, like Comparison of notetaking software (a list which, by the way, needs a good shake-up to remove accumulated cruft).

As it has been suggested, as "one of the world's top authorities on technical outlining and ecco" you should write an article on it and get it published somewhere that wikipedia accepts as a reliable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An author's citing their own work as an external reference to my own view is not objective. non-notable plugins for a product are, non-notable. The question is, is the subject of *this* article a 'non-notable plugin'. If we examine that relevant sources-- relevant for *this* software, there is clear reference. Moreover, if we consider the actual content of the article the notability is documented with external reference. Ie, the article addresses and documents in what way specifically the add on is notable. (It's not a plug-in, it's actually a symbiont program.). For example, the program allows the technical outlining of djvu, pdf and sim. formats. You personally might not find that notable, the the external references establish the notability of this subject. Moreover, in the *relevant community* on the references used by that community (including technical wikis and forums) the add on is considered notable and significant. In other delete discussions for SOFTWARE, *exactly* this criteria was offered for testing notability of SOFTWARE.YSWT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment before I give up-- because it seems there is no DISCUSSION or debate going on here about the article content. 'Voting' to delete an article because the name of the subject software does not have google hits outside of technical forums and wikis misses the point. To quote from [15] "Whilst guidance on notability is useful, it is intended as a rule of thumb, and not the only consideration in a debate. Rather, the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating specifically to that content and subject. It is not helpful to declare a subject non-notable, an editor should express their opinion as to why the article is non-notable, referencing both the article contents and any guidance offered on Wikipedia."

Interestingly, **ALL** comments to this point which discussed the actual contents and subject of the article have been either neutral or on the side of keeping the article. It sure would be fair if someone wanted to discuss the content and explain some reason or rational why the content is not notable, etc. Then there could be a discussion or 'argument' about the content. But somehow the 'delete' voices seem to be stuck on the external references to subject part of the analysis. While significant external discussion (buzz) on a topic creates a presumption of notability, the converse is NOT true. lack of external buzz does not establish that an article is not notable or should be deleted. AGAIN, lack of external buzz does not establish that an article is not notable. To examine that issue we need to examine the CONTENT of the article. AGAIN "the subject of the article should frame the debate". YSWT (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but there is something ridiculous here. Instead of being a discussion of the article's contents, its like "i've searched google, not many results DELETE// I've found hits only in forums and wikis DELETE// I've found no hits in blogs, DELETE". (1) did the additional bean counters think the first poster was lying when they said they didn't find many google hits ? If 3,000 people don't find many google hits, is that more credible than if 1 person doesn't find google hits ? (I guess if someone lived where searches were edited, like in china, that might be relevant...) And what, deletion of articles becomes a discussion of google search keywords ? By what methodology did someone determine that the current product name should be search in conjunction with "Ecco Pro" ?? because just "MagicView" returns over a quarter million google hits ?? If we take just ( "EccoMV" or "MagicView" or "EccoMagic" ) and ("Ecco" or "EccoPro" or "Ecco Pro") google gives over *a thousand* results. "MagicView" and "Software" gives about 30,000. But search "ecco pro add-ons" and get NO results. So, obviously, by this logic ecco pro add-ons are not notable. The 'proto' precursor to MagicView was called "eccomagic". Google eccomagic software and find HUNDREDS of results. Heck, its' even [16] 'Officially Trusted'. The proto-precursor is notable but the actual developed software not ???? YSWT (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Because, sometimes, someone will make their own search and find stuff that the other people missed. For example, search for my name here to see how I found several newspapers sources where others hadn't. When searching google, it's easy to miss stuff. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note--I'll not try to answer every single thing you mentioned in detail; had we but world enough, and time... but the very last thing is interesting. Eccomagic is notable? Well, they don't have an article on WP, and the 'authority' you cite for its being "Officially Trusted" is an online vendor! Reminder: the guy on the TV commercial with the white coat is not really a doctor. You still need to find sources that pass WP:RS. I actually looked, and found none. (Hint: you should try Google News instead of Google.)Drmies (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look, "Microsoft Word Viewer" in Google News has Zero (0) results. but that is NOT the point. In your world 'sources' are websites that talk about the same topic discussed in an article. In my world 'sources' are the references given for information contained in the article. Your criteria is 'Does another credible website discuss the same subject as this article'. If not, delete. This is how you understand the Wikipedia purpose and deletion criteria. How does this wikipedia guidance language fit in your world view "Whilst guidance on notability is useful, it is intended as a rule of thumb, and not the only consideration in a debate. Rather, the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating specifically to that content and subject. It is not helpful to declare a subject non-notable, an editor should express their opinion as to why the article is non-notable, referencing both the article contents and any guidance offered on Wikipedia." To me that is very clearly saying it matters WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT not if others on the net have discussed the same subject. YES, if lots of others have discussed the same subject *that* raises a PRESUMPTION that the subject is noteworthy. but, seems you are confusing the test for a presumption of noteworthiness with an analysis/discussion of noteworthiness.

- - (continued) nothing you've mentioned even remotely touches on the subject mater of the article and why or why not it might be notable, or what might make it so. Notability is a relative concept. EccoMV is not notable among great poetry, or among political satire. But what about among web clippers/outliners/djvu viewing programs. Is eccoMV a 'notable' djvu viewing program. (maybe it is or its not, but THAT is what we should be discussing). Once we've determined there is no PRESUMPTION of notability we have to examine the actual article and subject. You seem to not realize that, and want to end your analysis with the presumption of notability. Ie. for your view, if there is no PRESUMPTION of notability there is no notability. PRESUMPTION of notability is established by external references ('buzz'). Notability is established by the actual content. Where there is not a presumption of notability (ie., where there is NOT internet buzz on the topic), To quote, " the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate ".

(notice how you frame the issue "Eccomagic is notable?" based on 'external' web references. but that is NOT the test. "Eccomagic is PRESUMED notable?" *should* have been what you wrote (since you were talking about external web sites discussing the same topic). Seems you've confused the PRESUMPTION of notable based on internet buzz with the actual question of being notable. (and seems its not just you.). Again, internet buzz does not establish notability. It can establish a *presumption* of notability to avoid having to deal with the actual content. In your view, if the presumption of notability can't be established, you don't want to deal with the content. For you, the presumption of notability has replaced actual notability. The 'shortcut' to testing the actual content has replaced actual testing of the content. Discussion about looking for 'external' buzz has replaced discussion about the article's actual content. Actually, that's pretty interesting.YSWT (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to burst your bubble, but "Microsoft Word Viewer" has 105 entries on Google News. Second, adios. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My friend you're not exactly accurate and you're exactly missing the point. (1) you've linked to the news archives, not the news. different searches, different results-- but so what. so what if it is zero or 1000,0000,0000. (2) You're just not willing to face the actual issue. You think the policy is 'if there are not external websites of repute that mention the topic, delete it'. THAT IS NOT THE WIKIPEDIA POLICY. The policy is more SUBTLE than that. If there ARE sufficient external website links to a topic then the topic is PRESUMED notable. So, as the first step OF A TWO STEP PROCESS searching on google like you (and every other 'delete' voter) can provide a PRESUMPTION of notability. But if not-- if there are not external 'buzz' on a topic there is a further step, EXAMINATION OF THE ACTUAL ARTICLE CONTENT. You seem to want to act as if this second step doesn't exist. A simpler world without the further step is more relaxed ? Less to deal with ? Too abstract ? More 'secure' just to be able to examine google results and talk about those. You've addressed google results as THE REASON TO DELETE THE ARTICLE. You're entire discussion is based on google search results. You've just ignore the articles content. In your analysis of keeping or deleting an article, what the article says, it's content is irrelevant to you. You see the question as an analysis of google results. To quote from above, that's crazy. Large credible google results is a substitute for finding notable content (it provides a presumption of notability). Maybe it is confusing for you that the opposite is not true. Lack of credible google results does not provide any presumption that the subject is not notable. YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO READ THE ARTICLE AND THINK ABOUT WHAT IS WRITTEN. I know that is a bummer.

- Others have actually done that-- actually read and thought about the content and given an opinion about it. There is a unamious consensus amoung *EVERYONE* who has done that that the article should be kept. If you read the article and have suggestions, or even if you find that the content BASED ON THE CONTENT is not notable, we can discuss that even have an 'argument' about it. You can present your views about WHY the content is not notable, and I (or others) can respond. But you haven't done that. You have responded to me but *only* about google search results. You didn't even understand my references to the web. They are NOT to show that this software has internet buzz.

- Maybe take a moment to consider what an Encyclopedia is, eg." a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." , "A comprehensive reference work with articles on a range of topics", "A work containing factual articles on subjects in every field of knowledge, usually arranged alphabetically." you'll notice this is different from an abstract. Turning Wikipedia into an abstract of topics discussed elsewhere on the internet is a sad thing to do. Wikipedia should be a true ENCYCOPEDIA, a storehouse and beacon of knowledge. Ask if the article offers meaningful information/knowledge that someone would want to know-- ie, ask "is the *content* notable". An article on what you ate today may be fully supported by external documentation-- but has not notable value for others. This is the issue. Does not seem like you're interested in addressing that. (or, are you so 'connected' in your life to the internet that you recognize the internet as *being* the world ? Something not on the net is not in the world ?. Or, was this topic just misplaced. Ie., instead of being in 'delete or not software topic' it was misplaced in the 'delete or not article about the web' category ?. Again, nothing here is personal. You obviously are find google results interesting and something you want to talk about. Your argument for deletion is 'insufficient google results'. You could even argue that those in consensus to keep the article are reaching that conclusion based on the *CONTENT* of the article being notable, *not* on the google results. From your perspective, those who reached consensus to keep the article BASED ON ITS CONTENT don't understand wikipedia's mission nor guidelines, that it's not about content being notable, it's all about the subject of the article have sufficient 'buzz' to be 'worthy' to be 'allowed' in wikipedia. To your view Worthiness is determined conclusively by google results and internet buzz. For you, notability of the actual article content is beyond your evaluation. YSWT (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - adverspamtisement, two SPA IP's and an editor dedicated to promoting this software across several articles are the only editors in favor of keeping this article. I also suggest running check-user against the IPs and YSWT and blocking YSWT if sock abuse is confirmed. Rklawton (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Other than rude accusation and factually erroneous claims, you've stated nothing about the article that makes it advertisement. Since the language about the program *and* format was lifted directly from MS Viewer page, (similar software idea), am very curious as to what specifically you find is advertising. What language is biased or non-objective, for example. Further, only one of the comments was by a SPA and they explained explicitly who they were, where they were, and why they were posting. There comment was reasoned, and gave specific basis for their opinion and input. Exactly what your comment lacks.

Delete One of many articles about nonnotable software. Also is clearly written as an advertisement so there's nothing good we'd be getting rid of. Themfromspace (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply At least you acknowledge this software is as notable as many articles on WP. But you've contributed nothing in explaining how the subject is nonnotable. Neither have you provided any specifics or basis for your 'opinion' that the article is written as an advertisement. Since the article was written exactly (same structure, language, etc., ) as the Microsoft Word Viewer WP page, (additional materials added after objection as to notablity was made), you've provided zero basis for your comment.

'Delete Plugins don't inherit the notability of the software they are designed for (otherwise, we would have zounds of articles on small plugins!). This plugin doesn't appear to have any notability of its one that warrants an article, and the article does not mention any coverage by third-party independient sources. P.D.:There are some sources, but they are all to support secondary points unrelated to the software, like "Organization provides access to information or a collection". Doh. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You've made a valid point that Plugins don't inherit the notability of the software they are designed for, and agree with you. However, nothing about the notability of this software was based on the notability of the software it integrates with. You've also brought an intelligent line to the discussion-- examining the topic (as opposed to trying to count google results). On second look might you agree that the cited points are not so unrelated to the article's subject-- they explain the notability of the software. It is was the first, and is currently the only technical outliner rtf/html/pdf/djvu clipper/viewer. You may not find that interesting personally, but the article explains what the software does and why. (based wholly on outside sources). That organization provides access to information is not so obvious. The comparison between outline structure to organize information with keyword search reliance is explained and cited by reference. That is important to the topic because the software's significance/notablity is being a technical outliner for accessing information. If it were one of many technical outliners allowing access to information (html/djvu/pdf, etc) then agree whole heartedly that it would not be notable. But as referenced in the article it is the *only* program that is a technical outliner and data archive. Helpful ? YSWT (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge Sorry, but I do not see any type of notability in this software. I am certain it works very well but I couldn't really find press for it. I am so sorry! Perhaps it can be merged into another article? Basket of Puppies 06:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No need to be sorry. Your's is the first legitimate delete comment, at least as I see it. You correctly understand that notability is not to get rid of content, but rather to define what is placed as independent article and what better belongs in a broader topic. What kind of 'press' specifically are you looking for to support notability. Ie. in your view of wikipedia, what criteria would you require for a program to be listed in its own article ? If anyone can articulate any sort of criteria, we can then have a discussion about whether the article meets that criteria or not. Repeated "Delete. Not Notable" comments aren't especially helpful, nor are they a substitute for consensus. Again, from Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable." See my comments and url references to DoriSmith, above. YSWT (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability presented via reliable independent sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Casn't seem to find any evidence of notability via reliable sources. Skinny87 (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observation there is a problem with the discussion process for deleting this article. Maybe because the article was mis-categorized on the deletion page. THIS IS AN ARTICLE ON OUTLINING SOFTWARE. Notability of an outlining software package is not going to be found in people magazine. Lack of notability at reliable sources is only relevant where there are reliable sources where the software would be notable. The primary source for information about this topic is at the offcial user group yahoo forum. At that forum the software is notable. But that forum is discounted here as 'just a yahoo forum'. OK. Cnet publishes a list of the few outlining softwares available. reference from that list is discounted as a 'sellers list'. Fine. A couple of individuals host blogs or information pages about outliners. The subject is referenced there. But those are disregarded as being individual's private web pages. Ok, but that is where and how this subject is covered on the web. It was literally pointed out here that the subject did not appear in Google News. Neither do most (if any) of the articles on Math. If there are current articles on the web where all notable software of this type appears, and this software is missing-- that's a good point. But that requires web locations where you would expect to find references, and have those references lacking.

failure to find evidence of notability via reliable sources is only relevant when you've found reliable sources on this subject and reference to this topic is missing. Take the mathamatics Notability guidelines for example. Two reliable sources where notable subjects are *expected* to be found are listed. Ie. there is consensus that sources exist, and what they are. Therefore, lack of reference *on those sources* is evidence of non-notability. But that only applies where such sources for THE TOPIC UNDER REVIEW exist on the web. As explained in the Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions article, "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet."

What is missing here from those seeking to delete is any discussion or consensus on where you would expect to find sources on the subject via the internet but don't. A couple of individuals have blogs/webpages dedicated the narrow field of outlining. The subject is referenced on those pages. The subject has a website. The subject is referenced extensively in forms *dedicated to the narrow field* relevant to the subject. Those are all places where you'd expect to be reference, and there is. The subject is not a part of pop culture. Maybe someday it will be. Being a part of pop culture is not, and should not be the guideline for inclusion of articles. YSWT (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wasting your time here - you can only save the article by adding (according to wikipedia guidelines) reliable sources, no matter how long your replies are here, if they aren't in the article, it will be deleted. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that YSWT is personally involved with the software and its promotion and really shouldn't be editing the article in the first place. Rklawton (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the world's top authorities on technical outlining and ecco, would seem my input on notability within that area would be especially meaningful. If not obvious, in a field so specialized, am likely to be involved in some way with most new technical outlining software or add-ons. Notably, I've not cited to my own personal reviews or editorials about the subject , nor used any alias, and most importantly was *extremely* careful to avoid *any* bias or non-objectivity by taking --> word for word <--- the text for the article from another article on a similar product (MS Viewer). (After posted for deletion, added section explaining the software's significance) Non-objectivity of the article;s content is a legitimate issue, and if there is *ANYTHING* in the article text that you feel might not be objective, helpful to point out so can be improved. Beyond that, my own personal input has been offered without reference to my personal expertise, going so far as to NOT use my position as one of the the world's top experts on the subject in defense of notabilty. YSWT (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:N. YSWT - haranguing contributors to the Afd with repeats of the same comments is not helping your cause. ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- YSWT, this is seriously bad manners. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Instead of discussion on the issues multiple 'Clearly fails' "votes" to delete, and rude, personal attack. Do not want to get into personality based discussion. "Sneak Vandalism" is documented in the wikipedia vandalism section. It involves deleting a substantive contribution (which is vandalism) and labeling the reversion as vandalism removal. [17] is exactly what you FreeRangeFrog did. You attempted to remove the web references I listed, and the discussion, and did so under the guise of removing vandalism. I was the second contributor you did that too, using the same technique to revert someone's 'Keep' to a 'comment'. After I called you on it, suddenly the discussion is flooded with 'Delete' "votes" that don't present any rational basis, but instead make personal attacks. Am not interested in going there with you, or friends.YSWT (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Someone posted a note on the administrator's notice board. As a result, many administrators - such as myself - read this note. A few of us took interest in following up. We did so - and 100% of us (some of the most experienced Wikipedia editors with 10s of thousands of edits and years of experience each) all agree that your article should be deleted. You should learn from this. Rklawton (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is in line with wikipedia guidelines ? A reason to delete an article is because " 'some of the most experienced Wikipeida editors' all agree that your article should be deleted ". What is that ? A new, editor's progative delete ?

Look, if it so clear that the article should be deleted, that why don't you just post the rational and basis for that. (1) What is the criterion for SOFTWARE that you or others feel should be applied. There is not a formal guideline yet on wikipedia, WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE THE GUIDE. (2) If this article fails to meet that guideline state your reason or rational for it. That really isn't too difficult to do. "Because its not notable" isn't a legit rational. Neither is "Because we all think so". Further, your previous comments such as "adverspamtisement" were made without any support or rational. Not to mention your previous not so polite statements directed to me personally.

At least you admit that you've been involved in discussing the article with others 'off board'. The sudden addition of multiple 'deletes' without rational behind them was awful suspicious. It sure did seem like someone had asked for support in "reviewing" the article. You've made *repeated* comments here, none to substantive points, and *all* containing personally directed comment. Either (according to you) personally am using multiple IPs to post from, or should be ignored because am an expert in this topic, or should learn something personally. It is not about personalities, its just an article. It has content. If the content is appropriate or not appropriate for an article there are rational reasons that can be discussed. YSWT (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor has posted their rationale. It boils down to "not notable." I simply reported the consensus and suggested you take it under advisement. And yes, consensus is the standard reason for an article to be deleted via AfD. Next, I have neither participated in or do I know of any off board discussions. Yes, your article is going to be deleted. It could be deleted now under WP:SNOW. Your edits adding this software to other articles will also be reviewed and possibly removed. Keep in mind that you have been requested to refrain from editing articles in which you have a conflict of interest. This limits you to contributing your suggestions to talk pages. If other editors see merit in your ideas, then they can choose to follow your suggestions. Or not. Lastly, you should be aware that if you attempt to disrupt any of these processes, you may find yourself blocked from editing any part of Wikipedia. So far, your efforts in this matter have not been very encouraging, but if you really are interested in editing an encyclopedia rather than simply promoting your product, I urge you to find a mentor and follow his/her recommendations. It's your call. Rklawton (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal, and even threatening response from you. "Your edits adding this software to other articles will also be reviewed and possibly removed." Isn't that exactly the opposite of deletion of this article. Isn't the whole point to delete when the subject should be merged. Notability is NOT an issue of appropriate content. You do, or should know that. If references to the article's topic are not appropriate in other articles that argues strongly that the subject should be kept on its own. As for "This limits you to contributing your suggestions to talk pages." if I am not supposed to comment or respond here, please just direct me to where the wiki guides me on that and certainly will follow. "attempt to disrupt any of these processes" what in the world are you talking about. "but if you really are interested in editing an encyclopedia rather than simply promoting" maybe you should back down for a second, get out of personality conflict mode, and look calmly and objectively at the subject matter. I have been involved for many years (am an expert in that field) in helping share knowledge about technical outliners. I support this program, but I don't have much ego interest in the article. My view, as an expert in the field is that information about the software is notable, even important to those seeking it. If there is language reflecting any bias, or non-objectivity that is import to fix in any article. The question here is not that. The question here is notability. A polite discussion of rational based on the content of the article is welcome. "Everyone wrote 'Delete - Not notable' so we have consensus" is not appropriate. It isn't even consensus as intended for the wiki. Wikipedia has a life of its own. Am very curious to see where that is today. (My personal suggest to you, take a breath, go jump out of plane, and then come back and share with RATIONAL DISCUSSION, specifically where you would expect to find external references for this specific subject.) YSWT (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For further guidance, see WP:COI - but I posted that on your talk page hours ago. If you are an expert in the field, then go publish an article about this product in the appropriate reliable source. If no reliable sources are interested in your article, then we certainly aren't, either. You say consensus doesn't matter, but I say - wait and watch what happens, and then you will see what matters. I think you'll find it most instructive. Rklawton (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) published on the topic, but to my view reliance on my own work product to support an article I also authored on wikipedia would not be objective. (2) a preliminary issue is to come to some consensus as to what is a reliable sources relevant to *this field of interest*, please see discussion above. (or at least consensus on critera *for this particular subject* for this discussion). (3) Consensus is *all* that matters, but consensus is *not* (or **Should** not be) counting of up and down thumbs. Consensus should be the result of RATIONAL ARGUMENT, ie., not just ("Not Notable"), but a reasoning related to the specific content. Again, if this topic would be expected to be reported in google news and wasn't "not in google news" is a great basis for showing non-notable. BUT ONLY if the topic would be expected to be referenced there.

Different subjects have *different* criteria for notablity. Do you think that is a good idea ? Have you thought about what criteria best serves wikipedia in relationship to software ? I've made above 'arguments' as to my view. After thought on the issue, do you have a view to contribute ? Are you aware of the efforts to INCREASE the coverage for software on the wiki ? YSWT (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view? Your extension software to an out-dated freeware program isn't notable. That's my view, and no, I don't care to argue the matter with someone who has a personal interest in promoting it. Yeah, we'd like to have better software coverage, but that doesn't mean we need to help people hype their add-on, commercial products. If your product was all that hot, other people would have taken interest in it. But no, it's just you, your product, and your drum. And all us mean old Wikipedia curmudgeons aren't going to let you use Wikipedia as your personal advertising medium. Go pay for advertising in the various relevant periodicals like normal software developers, and if you've got a worthy product, an industry journalist will take note (usually with the encouragement of a sales manager who wants to keep your advertising dollars flowing in) and actually write about it. If that happens often enough, someone (else) will take notice and author an article about how great your program is. Until that day happens, your article doesn't have a snowball's chance. Rklawton (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply "Your extension software to an out-dated freeware program isn't notable. That's my view". (Certainly have help contribute to the design, but not 'my' extension). And its fair that to YOU the 'out-dated' program isn't notable. But for the thousands of users of that program it IS. To establish that notability (to *that* interest group) citation and reference provided. It establishes notability within that framework. It is not a worldwide subject, not of interest of google news or wired. If we look at Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions we see that "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet." And , if we look at Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#What_is_deletion_for we see that "some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept".

Advertising deals with content and not scope. Deletion is a scope issue-- does the subject deserve its own article. By keeping software to its own subject, you *prevent* advertising by preventing the insertion of one software in the article of another in order to 'tail wind'. How does it benefit a software company to have a segregated wikipedia article ?? No one rummages around wikipedia looking for articles on software. In your personal case as a photographer, the link you have on your business website to pages here on wikipedia may lend you credibility for your clients or shows off your work. More power to you. But the same does not apply to software. The purpose of the wiki is to provide information, including for research. What formats does the software read, what systems will it run on, who develops it, etc. The wiki tells us 'what is this thing'. You see it as an 'extension to an out-dated freeware program". Great. That is exactly the kind of INFORMATION wikipedia provides. If the facts are not accurate, or the wording is biased, etc., that as in any article would need to be made objective and cited to proper sources.

For some, (myself included) the idea than an 'old' software package can be 'modernized' by dis-assembly of the machine code is incredibly notable and interesting. This is demonstrated by references to places where the subjects of 'old software packages' are discussed-- and that is not on google news. A subject of interest and notable to a specialized community *is* notable pursuant to the wikipedia criteria. That a subject has low or even no google hits is *not* *in and of itself* a reason to exclude the subject-- unless a notable topic on this subject *would* appear on google, etc. YSWT (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual question was "what criteria best serves wikipedia in relationship to software". Eg, if the subject was 'accidents' perhaps your criteria would be 'news coverage in a regional media' , etc. when the subject is 'technical software' what is your criteria. certainly (to my pov) 'news coverage in a regional media' is *not* an indication of a technical software's notability. Key idea offered: Different subject types have different criteria to determine notability. If you haven't even defined your criteria, you have no rational basis for making a determination. Your may feel one way or another, and feelings are great. Lots of others may share your feelings. Maybe wikipedia is even governed by the feelings of the majority. It's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be governed by rational decision making. Decisions based on consensus of criteria and whether those criteria have been reached. YSWT (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it seems quite clearly to me to be the work of pretty much one user, who seems intent to pretty much work on it by themselves. I do not feel notability has been met. It is clearly a conflict of interest as well, and, in my opinion, lacks enough outside research and contributions. In addition, it reads like an advertisement, despite the attempts to tone down POV. Vincent Valentine 01:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply "it seems quite clearly to me to be the work of pretty much one user" (????). "I do not feel notability has been met" In what way specifically ? "reads like an advertisement" which language, specifically ? YSWT (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...notability as demonstrated by reliable, verifiable (published) sources and without our own original research, interpretation, or synthesis. Notability - a standard which is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. A standard with which you clearly disagree. On this point, Wikipedia is inflexible. Numerous editors have reviewed this and offered their opinion - an opinion you seem incapable of accepting. When you were learning to walk, did you demand of gravity an explanation for why you fell, or did you eventually learn to accept that you simply can't do what you want by shear force of will or word count? Rklawton (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"notability as demonstrated by reliable, verifiable sources" we're totally in agreement here. This is clearly wikipedia's policy. But that is not a standard. If you look at the notability guideline pages you'll notice THERE ARE DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR DEMONSTRATING NOTABILITY FOR DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. The first step is to determine what is "reliable, verifiable sources" in the contect of technical SOFTWARE.

to quote from another editor's comments with which you are also aware "While I don't believe in that two wrongs would make a right, however in the software case there are hundreds, if not thousands of wiki entries for less notable software than this one (and personally, I think it's a good thing to have those pages, too). That isn't a question of right and wrong anymore, but a question of precedent and refraining from applying double standards, in order to remain consistent. There is no argument about that everyone would be happier if more sources would establish the notability of this software, however it would be a strawman to imply that there exists the expectation that wikipedia pages can only be created for exceptionally well known or widely used software. Furthermore, in the Perl community this software is most definitely considered notable, as evidenced by the various posts on Perl related news sites, blogs, community wikis and forums. I do not believe that the deletionist approach would remain consistent with the spirit of wikipedia policies" Ie., for software, that editor's criteria is to use what the relevant specialty community considers reliable, including blogs, community wikis and forums. If those sources are included the subject of *this* article clearly has external reference sources. Now, you don't have to agree with *that* criteria for software. But if not, what is the standard that *you* propose ?

TO quote from the guides "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Whilst guidance on notability is useful, it is intended as a rule of thumb, and not the *only* consideration in a debate. Rather, the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating *specifically* to that content and subject." Again, "the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating specifically to that content and subject." YSWT (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can clarify my earlier points: 11 out of the 17 edits in the history were by one user. That's quite a disproportional amount, and when you add that some of the 6 non-YSWT edits were for things like categorization, it gets even more staggering. Given that this is a clear conflict of interest, the percentage of potentially compromised edits is very alarming to me as a Wikipedia user. In addition, your rabid replies to anyone who challenges the page shows your deep attachment to both the product and the article. This attachment is unhealthy with regards to policy.

The article was 2 hours old.

My replies are directed to substance. Basket of Puppies challenged the page and there was nothing rabid involved in my reply. YSWT (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now several days old and nothing seems to have changed. Perhaps this is again due to the fact that you are the primary editor of the page. Even still, you have had several days to make significant improvements. The time issue is one of the reasons the AfD process is five days long--it gives all parties a chance to be heard and time for issues to be addressed, and hopefully remedied, so that an article need not be deleted. Yet these changes do not seem to be forthcoming. Although I will disregard your statements classifying everyone except yourself as "non-experts" (I am a former computer engineer and software technician) and the "deletion" community among other things (perhaps this might not quite be an actualization of the assume good faith policy? [to use your own words]), it seems pretty clear to me that the point of it only having been two hours old is at this point irrelevant. Vincent Valentine 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a Wikipedia community member, I am allowed to post on this debate, and my opinion is my opinion. The fact that some other articles might have less notability and yet still exist does not enter into this discussion. I would comment in the same way on them as here. This discussion is solely in regards to the article in question, and to be honest the paucity of outside sources (nearly half of the resources are connected to the ecco site itself) is undoubtedly problematic with regards to multiple policies, including notability, verifiability and even WP:COI (as you have a personal connection to these sites). I might be persuaded that the article was worth keeping if user YSWT agreed not to edit it anymore, since 65% of COI edits is unacceptable, but such an agreement seems unlikely. How would you feel if a criticism section was added? Not that I intend to write one, but the mere fact of the compromised nature of the article is troubling to me. I don't think anyone can honestly say that this article's neutrality hasn't been called into question.

I share your concerns about COI, which is why (1) A template article was used to insure objectivity Microsoft Word Viewer and (2) no references to my own publications on the subject was included. Since that template had no external references, this article had none either. The exact words were used with the facts changed as appropriate. (Additional sections added after deletion, to clarify notability). In another context the double standard issue needs to be addressed because it erodes the credibility of the wiki. The article used as a template had all but one reference to the developer's website. Since every software topic article contains information such as program specs, etc., that is normal for the subject.

A template is a template. You have been free to be bold and add the external references yourself over the past few days, provided they do not violate community guidelines. In addition, I might suggest that having articles created by people who are involved with the item itself erodes the credibility of Wikipedia, thus the reasoning behind the conflict of interest policy. Vincent Valentine 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little ego attachment, if any, in the article. I am happy to agree not to edit it, so long as it does not become a forum for the kinds of personal undertones running through the discussion on deletion. If a criticism section makes the article more helpful, and again, of course so long as the section is kept topical, if it makes the wiki stronger, that's great. Wikipedia should be an awesome and amazing thing. Working things out by mutual positive cooperative efforts as a community is supposed to be the karma of the wiki. YSWT (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make this a reality, I would be pleased and have no objections. As of yet, I have not been wholly convinced--there is always hope though. Nevertheless, I think everyone can agree that you do have a strong attachment to the article, by the nature of the fact that a.) you created the article and b.) you were involved in the creation of the article's subject. Would you be open to the article being deleted now and then recreated at a future date (provided that it met notability guidelines at that point) by someone's own volition, thus eliminating the conflict of interest and also making the Wiki stronger by improving its credibility and reliability? It seems to be a sensible course of action. Since you have agreed not to edit the article due to your own, admitted, COI concerns, this would satisfy all parties. I admit we are not all--as you have keenly pointed out--experts and we are not all abreast of the latest papers that have come out, but many of us are knowledgeable and the creation of the article on the subject by a neutral party would only bolster the collective nature of Wikipedia and improve its credibility. Vincent Valentine 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the first paragraph of the section "functional significance" feels as though the reader is being clubbed over the head with trivialities and banalities in order to showcase the usefulness of the product. It feels very non-neutral and hints of advertising. To sum up my feelings, this article has the potential to be a useful article, but among other things that would require user YSWT ceasing from engaging in a conflict of interest, and I think this discussion shows that that would be pretty much impossible. It is not surprising for a user to want to have an article about something they themselves have worked on, but in those situations it undoubtedly calls for intensified scrutiny. Vincent Valentine 13:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an article can be edited for improvement, that is the beauty of a collaborative wiki. I would note that the wording is taken from direct quotations, each of which is cited. The information is from highly credible, neutral and objective sources such as the library science department of Brandeis University. Then again, the article was only 2 hours old when posted for deletion.

The link from which the quotations are taken (the Brandeis link) does not mention the subject of the article directly. Thus, it is again another one of the links that does not establish notability or reliability of the article, merely describing another topic. In addition, I believe the "two hours old" point has been addressed above. Vincent Valentine 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that comments such as "I think this discussion shows that that would be pretty much impossible" might not quite be an actualization of the Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith policy ? If it makes the wiki better, of course I support ti, as I suspect would most other contributors. YSWT (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here I will only quote the assume good faith page itself: "Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith." I feel that deleting this article (for the concerns that have amply been laid out by many editors, myself included) at this time makes the Wiki better, and that is why I support it and that is why I suspect the majority of other editors here have also commented in favor of its deletion. Vincent Valentine 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formal apologies to Drmies who did not and was not involved in the 'sneak vandalism'. FreeRangeFrog, (who so graciously posted this subject for deletion) deserves all the credit for that, using the classic sneak vandalism technique (see Wikipedia:Vandalism) of removing the external reference links added here in support of the article under the notation of 'removing vandalism'. Drmies was *not* the person who did that, and very much deserves the formal apology he has requested. YSWT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Why, thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be be WP:SNOW at this stage, someone want to do the honours and shut this sucka down?--Cameron Scott (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is Cameron Scott's third summary demand to delete. Have not made any comment about the standards proposed in other software delete discussions (see above). By those standards the specialty forum references would be clearly supportive of inclusion. Won't discuss the criteria for determining reliability in software context, nor address the specific subject of the article. We all agree there needs to be 'reliable sources' the question is what that means in a software article context. Example of those 'voting' repeatedly to delete this article but don't want to discuss it rationally. Cameron just wants to "shut this sucka down". My own and other voices looking at the content and subject have consensus that in SOFTWARE articles sourcing should be proper as for software. Cameron etal offer no alternative criteria for this subject or software generally. "We know it when we smell it. This stinks because it smells." YSWT (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cameron, I believe that this has two more painful days to run before it can be closed. YSWT, with all due respect, I think you should be aware that volume is no substitute for content. one brave monkey 09:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember we aren't a bureaucracy, in a situation like this, where the community is in agreement, we can close an AFD early. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, good point. one brave monkey 09:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should let it run its course. The (now deleted) debate for the Threshold (online game) article was closed a day early and a ruckus was raised about it at DRV and the deletion was overturned. Themfromspace (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be surprised by ruckus whatever the outcome, so keeping it for the full five days seems wisest. one brave monkey 12:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is clearly not appropriate for deletion. The wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear:

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines[edit]

Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject^[1] for advice on where to look for sources.
Put the ((notability)) tag on the article to alert other editors.
If the article is about a specialized field, use the ((expert-subject)) tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.^[2] Otherwise, if deleting:^[3]

If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
Use the ((prod)) tag, for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after five days if nobody objects. For more information, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.
For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for five days.

This article was TWO HOURS into the process of being written when marked for deletion.

The cardinal rule of wikipedia Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith has been sorely lacking.

Gross violations of wikipedia rules and policy have occurred, with the silent support of the 'community' involved in supporting the article's deletion. The editor who posted the article for deletion going so far as to revert a 'Keep' position to a 'comment', and to remove external references offered in support asserting in his revision edit to be removing vandalism.

When others tried to comment in support of keeping the article it was made immediately clear that such comments were not invited and an atmosphere of hostility created. Notably, in looking at other deletion pages for guidance I found this practice common, one editor who had made a variety of edits on subjects spanning years was literally labeled as being a 'meatpuppet'.

I was personally threatened, if I 'obstructed the process of deletion' I might be banned from wikipedia, and that my other contributions would now be closely scrutinized, etc.

None of the 'deletion' community is an expert in the subject, have no idea what papers have been presented or what articles exist outside of google searches.

Encouragement of others to contribute to the article, time for that process to occur, etc., were all suppressed.

The article is not porn, it is factually accurate and properly referenced. If there are issues about the content, certainly helpful to improve them, etc., as with any article.

Instead, removing the 3 hour old article from the wiki has become to those involved an important cause. One editor, explaining in no uncertain terms that this article "will be deleted", and another, with support from others, going so far as to declare "someone want to do the honours and shut this sucka down?"

All in all, not what had expected from the wikipedia community. YSWT (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, YSWT, we get it. You're a voice crying in the wilderness, the only one on Wikipedia who understands the Wikipedia guidelines, the prophet disdained in his own land. We don't understand what reliable sources are, but then, we shouldn't need to, since you are the world's leading (or were you number 2?) expert on this matter, so we should JUST TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. (Irritating, those all-caps.) Now, let this thing run its course; you've wasted enough electrons on this AfD. And if we get it wrong, and your article is deleted, console yourself with the thought that Wikipedia is not worthy anyway since it's run by a bunch of yahoos who don't know nuttin'. Don't forget to compare the above editors to Hitler, or to offer a conspiracy theory. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You've identified yourself as a top expert in the field, and complain that we, the "deletion community" are not experts in the subject and have no ideas what papers have been presented or exist outside of google. The solution is quite simple. Provide us with this information that we are missing. It's all about reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'us' against 'you' attitude is improper, the personal attack offensive. Development of a wiki article is a process, hopefully a collaborative one. Demanding notability sources for a 2 hour old article is not in line with the wikipedia guidelines. Beyond that, this is just a rehashing of what have commented on extensively above. Initial sources, in addition to those in the article have been offered with a request for discussion on a criteria framework appropriate for the topic. The subject has clearly been referenced externally, the question is if the initial references presented meet community consensus as sufficiently reliable. That doesn't mean a yes or no vote, it means a discussion as to the factual merits in light of the specific subject. One simple example. Under what criteria does external reference to the notability of a patch/add-on to an already notable software satisfy the notability criteria for software. In a non-software example, for example, if the Spice Girls got a new member, that member would be notable by virtue of her connection to the group. Even if there was no press anywhere on her. Or, the mere fact if cited by external source that Mr. X has become CEO of Microsoft would make him notable, by virtue of his position, even if not press existed on him other than that he was CEO. (Obviously not all associated with a notable subject are notable because of that connection. A new programmer hired by MS would not seem to be notable for that reason alone. The connection between the subject and the notable subject must itself be significant and notable.)YSWT (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all that you have typed, you managed to completely avoid providing any of the papers or other documentation that you imply exist. An AFD runs for 5 days. For an expert in the subject, this should be ample time to provide sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion is that the article is my personal responsibility ? You proposed standard is that 5 days is sufficient for an article to be visited and exposed and for contributors to seek out and provide notability references ? Am not clear as to your view-- you agree that if the eccoPro software is notable (as shown my external reference) and that the addition/modification made to the program by the add-on is notable as shown by external reference that satisfies notability for you ? You agree that with a technical software subject external reference to notability from the list server recoganized (per external reference proof) that reference of notability within that relevant community satisifies the notability requirement for specialty software ? You have a different standard for determining software notability ? (so it will be clear what additional evidence of notability is to your view, required.) YSWT (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite all the tl;dr discussion above, the fact remains that references 1 - 5 are MagicView's own, and references 6 - 10 don't mention it; the article cites no independent reliable source and so does not establish notability. All the sound and fury, and the number of SPAs coming out of the woodwork, suggest that this is an attempt to use WP for promotion. The amount of effort that has gone into rhetoric here could surely have been more usefully employed. JohnCD (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response on a 2 hour old article the issue is not *if* article references establish notability, but *could it*. "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." There are clear external references that can be added regarding "eccoPro", there are external references that can be added establishing the notability of the subject to "eccoPro". Further, there are references of notability in the relevant technical forums which are recognized by the relevant technical community as being authoritative. references can be added establishing that within the relevant community using this software the software is notable. Examples have been offered above, and within the article. The importance/notability of djvu/pdf/rtf edit/display ability for organization/outline software can be established. The importance/notability even critical element of being able to capture web pages and organize them has been documented in the article. The article establishes this tool does something unique, and doing that thing is notable and important.

"SPAs coming out of the woodwork" is not accurate, and allusion to "promotion" not supported by anything actually in the article. YSWT (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 hours is a red herring. What about all the intervening days? Not one whiff of evidence for notability has been brought forward. -- Whpq (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Not one whiff of evidence for notability has been brought forward." isn't discussion. An article needs to have a notable subject in order to have its own article. Everyone agrees on that. Notability must be established by reliable reference. We are in agreement here as well. With software (as demonstrated by the MS Viewer article) reference is generally to the developer's web page, reflecting the technical specifications and information of the article. Notability reference does not come from the developer's site. But notability can be established by external reference describing the subject without naming it. For example, a source could establish that "any human 9 feet tall is an important subject matter" by then establishing the subject of the article is a human 9 feet tall importance has been established by external reference.YSWT (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the expert, we're stupid. I get it. We don't know software, we don't know Wikipedia. Make us dumbasses understand: show us a single article discussing this miraculous program--a discussion that's in-depth, which evaluates and appraises, published in a real journal or magazine or book or newspaper. Wphq is quite right: all this energy you've wasted when all you had to was produce some sources. Stop blathering about what an outstanding superbrilliant expert you are, and produce some sources. Stop haranguing us and wasting our time and produce some sources. Don't tell me to do it, cause I tried (yes, I did) and I failed--probably cause I'm a dumbass, no doubt, who doesn't understand software or Wikipedia or reliable sources. So you do it. If anyone is still reading this: I really think it's time for WP:SNOW. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, just 1 day left. I wouldn't want this be SNOWed and leave him the impression that he didn't receive a fair treatment. Just don't reply to the discussion and he won't reply back to you. Also, keep in mind that you don't need to address every point raised by the other party in a discussion, you can reply only to the important points and plainly ignore the minor ones that wouldn't advance the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The placement of the article for deletion after 1.5 hours of being drafted, the vigorous calls to SNOW after 2 and 3 days, seems pretty clear evidence that the calls to delete are non-objective. The strawman articles and personal insults demonstrate the lack of objectivity. The article involves a subject of specialty. Within the relevant community the external sources available demonstrate that. But I didn't raise that, nor even mention it in relationship to notability. It was in the context of COI.

The issue is notability. You, and many others are looking to see "a single article discussing this miraculous program--a discussion that's in-depth, which evaluates and appraises, published in a real journal or magazine or book or newspaper". Because the area is highly specialized, finding *that* specific kind of reference is likely going to take longer than a week. There is, and should not be a '5 day rule' for article deletion in relationship to notability except where there are objective reasons that the subject is clearly not notable based on subject matter. (What someone at for lunch, most likely not notable-- unless maybe they are the president of US, etc.).

In modern 'information age' there is an explosion of information and specialization. At one time 'all that there is to know of importance' about the world could be found in a few books. No longer. One result is that huge amounts of important, notable, but *specialized* information is not found in books, 'real journals or magazines'. The information is found in technical 'list servers' and 'forums' and the blogs of the experts in that specialty. 'Real journals' may discuss 'pop' software, but specialty software important to that specialty is discussed in the media *relevant to that specialty* which often is a list server, blog or internet forum. To establish what is important within such a community, objective evidence of notability is found in the relevant authoritative media of that community. This may be a blog, forum, etc., and not a 'journal or magazine'. As human knowledge expands, this has become true for many, even most areas of specialty. Notable knowledge, techniques and modern practices of dentists, hair removal specialists, etc. etc., is found in the specialties relevant forum-- recognized by that specialty as authoritative.

It sounds to me as if you are describing fancruft. If it is notable only to a tiny, tiny minority (one that does not seem to use journals, magazines, or any other form of media other than word of mouth or forums--in which case they likely would not turn to an encyclopedia like Wikipedia), then perhaps it is not notable as a whole. Vincent Valentine 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors such as "A beautiful mind" have recognized this. No one else has to agree, but in order to reach consensus one way or the other, a rational discussion is necessary. If there is a wikipedia guideline that as an automatic rule, a topic must be 'published in a real journal or magazine or book or newspaper' to be notable, please enlighten. Certainly if a topic is so published it is more clearly notable. But my argument is that other external references can establish, and do in this case establish notability.

There are 30,000 some google results for "MagicView Software". There is no way in 5 days to review and determine what review of the subject might be found there. Beyond that, in an area of specialty many journal articles are not searchable nor accessible for free via the internet. Determining notability is not something that should be required to be done within 1.5 hours, or even 5 days.

Feel free to use the Sandbox as a subpage on your own userpage to take as much time as you need to create the page, using reliable sources; or request the page be made by an interested user. You can work on the page in a way that does not make it public (thus not erroding Wikipedia's credibility through COI, among other things) and yet it still allows you time and space to develop it. I myself have made sandbox versions of pages before, that is what the sandbox is for. Vincent Valentine 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just begs the question, why are you in such a rush ?

Also *critical* is the clear double standard being applied. The template used for this article "Microsoft Word Viewer" contains no external references to notability. All but one link are to the developer's website. Review of the topics makes clear that the article is the norm, and not the exception of software wikipedia articles.

Propose those articles, and I will be happy to get involved in determining what I feel is best for Wikipedia in each case. As for right now, this is the article that is being discussed. Crying foul is not sufficient; we are discussing this article's merits, or lack thereof. Vincent Valentine 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People come to wikipedia looking to find knowledge. Usually, in my view, they come to seek knowledge on a particular topic. Inclusion of a topic *in its own article* does not 'advertise' to anyone the subject of the topic, it does, however, provide knowledge to those who seek it.

Determination of notablity needs to based on external reference, not the subjective knowledge of the editor, with one exception. If you are an expert in the field covered by the topic, some topics are clearly not notable, and allowing a day, a month, even a year for the 'fleshing out' of an article will not help. In that case 'SNOWing' a topic , or deleting it 5 days after being first drafter makes sense. But where you're not an expert on the subject, an article should be allowed to be developed. Article writing should be a process, and not a 'fast track' one. Wikipedia, to my view, should be an encyclopedia of referenced knowledge, not an abstract of web articles. YSWT (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've had 5 days to add all this "develop" stuff you've been wanting to do to the article's talk page. You've been reminded of this for 5 days. You've made it abundantly obvious that you've had the time over each of the last five days to do so. That should have been sufficient. Apparently even you, the world's foremost expert on the subject, couldn't find the resources necessary to improve the article. Rklawton (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to YSWT's above paragraph: Using the Sandbox allows you time to develop the article. Creating a stub that is not notable seems like the "fast track" process you describe above. To quote you here: "Wikipedia, to my view, should be an encyclopedia of referenced knowledge, not an abstract of web articles."--in that case you would not mind if we deleted this article, then, as it is poorly referenced, and the references that do exist outside of the subject's own webpages are merely snippets from other places that don't directly mention the source? Deletion of this article benefits the Wikipedia project as a whole. Vincent Valentine 15:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, see WP:BOLLOCKS. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corneal Copulation[edit]

Article is entirely original research with no verifiable references available. Topic is about an unencylopedic neologism, most likely created as a joke by the creator of the article. Unfortunately, this article does not fall within any speedy deletion guidelines. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:HOAX. It cites no sources, so it fails WP:RS and WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, possibly could have been speedied as vandalism/hoax, but this will do. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rizq[edit]

Article provides no references at all apart from several obscure self published books.Policy is clear on this "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". WP:BURDEN Deconstructhis (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS, subject has sufficient coverage in Nuwaubianism. dougweller (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page was created because the Nuwaubianism page was getting very large. It deals with a specific and easily-encapsulated aspect of the Nuwaubian belief system. Because of this, I recommend keep but certainly a merge would be better than a delete. The references are to self-published books because this belief system is best-represented by the self-published books of the cult that has developed the belief system in question. Just as you would use Tolkien's works as the best source of information on Tolkien's "Middle Earth", you would refer to York's books as the best source of information on York's "Rizq" concept. -— (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we accept that York is an authoritative source on Nuwaubianism, according to my interpretation of policy, it still doesn't follow that York can be the *only* source in support of the material in this article, which is currently the case. Tolkien articles contain sources other than Tolkien. In my opinion, considering this article is currently exclusively sourced from primary material, neutrality comes into play here as well as notability. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons given for the necessity of including this material in its own 'freestanding' article in the encyclopedia, is that the original Nuwaubianism article was already too large and that more room was required. I've taken note that three out of the four new independently referenced claims that have been dropped into this article over the past several hours, already appear in the original Nuwaubianism article, but are currently unreferenced in that context (see first and second paragraphs of the section titled "Cosmology: Illyuwn and Rizq"). The fourth claim and reference posted tonight in this article, stating that Rizq is the originating home planet of the Anunnaki, from whence they came in order to help create humans here on earth, does not appear to me to be included in the original Nuwaubianism 'mother' article, but both the claim and its accompanying supporting reference could be easily accommodated in the section titled "The races and their origins". In my personal opinion, improving the original article by adding the new references to the already existing material (and inserting your new claim with its appropriate reference) is a greater improvement to the encyclopedia than attempting to prop up a copiously detailed spin off article, which consists almost in its entirety of primary source material. One other thing that I find somewhat concerning about this situation, is that because we are relying almost exclusively on primary source material alone in this context, the relevant editors themselves are the ones that are determining what particular aspects of the available material concerning this belief system warrants both inclusion in, or exclusion from the article. Under normal circumstances (and according to policy), we as editors are instructed to rely on existing reliable secondary and tertiary sources to guide us in those interpretive calls, our own personal take on a subject is ideally irrelevant. How else can "neutrality" even be monitored, especially when we're dealing with source material as difficult to acquire as this is. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to translate that into English? -— (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll certainly give it a shot. In my opinion it is not desirable, nor do I think policy permits Wikipedia to provide every minute detail pertaining to a given belief system in an article, especially when those details are obtained only from a primary source and in particular, when a sufficient degree of detail is provided in an article that already exists. When such an article already exists, it is more appropriate to simply add reliable references to that one, rather than overwhelming the general reader with obscure details. Wikipedia editors are not permitted to decide on their own what constitutes the essential elements of a belief system, those guidelines are dictated by reliable secondary (and other) sources that the editor is supposed to be using to put the article together in the first place, otherwise, it likely constitutes "original research" WP:OR and almost certainly leads to a violation of the policies relating to WP:NPOV "non-neutrality".WP:CFORK and WP:PSTS contain some valuable information that is relevant here as well. There....that ought to do it. Aren't you glad you asked? :) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added something to the talk page of the Nuwaubianism article a few moments ago that I think might be relevant to this discussion.[18] cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Deconstructhis (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 03:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject doesn't seem notable in itself, if the original article is too long, perhaps they should simply cut down on some of the stuff. --Sloane (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neil P. Munro[edit]

While it's not difficult to find works with Munro's byline, it is difficult to find works about Munro—which is what matters for WP:CREATIVE. I haven't been able to find sufficient sources to show that he meets the standard. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is irretrievably POV. NPOV and BLP demand that we delete it. Even if he's actually notable, a fresh start is needed. Powers ^T 15:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Powers. Drmies (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Neil Munro; OK, Wikipedia must have criteria for exclusion & inclusion, but I do think I meet this test; "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Here is the borderline example, which I must and do beat; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ed_Lowe_(journalist) My articles have spawned discussion at the left-of-center blogs, such as the Deltoid blog (those peope don't like my stories about the lousy Lancet studies on Iraq war-deaths. FWIW, my sidebar story on the Lancet=study ethics problems got the main author sanctioned by Johns Hopkins U.), as well as on the right-of-center Powerline, Weekly Standard and National Review blogs. I was the repotter who jump-started the articles about Obamas's unverified crdit-card donations, and the Pentagon's growing interest in cyber-war [back in 98, ii think, and those cyber-war articles prompted a 'Dear Colleague Letter' in the Senate). I've also been widely cited in D.C. debates on stem-cells. You can also find online discussions about my fake-photo articles, and my immigration articles. My work for NJ is mostly behind the subscription wall, but it is widely read in DC, many of whose political adovcates broadcast it via their e-mail lists. If nothing else, you can check me out on Google, and I rank above the Socttish novelist of the same name. That alone shows that I've met the "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" test. For "neil munro" and "national journal," I've got 17,600 mentions on Yahoo, 3,580 on google and 1,590 on MSN. I meet the 'creative' criteria for being "widely cited by their peers." I can also claim to meet "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject ....of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." That's especially true of the Obama, cyber-war, fake-photo and stem-cell stories. The POV argument is reasonable charge. I suppose I should write the description it in a flatter style. I should also include that fact that I authored a poorly written, low-selling but useful book, titled "Electronic Combat." St. Martins published it, and kept about 90 percent of the revenue. I meet your reasonable & needed tests for notability. I hope you also meet your tests for fairness. I hope my next text meets your requirement for POV. Neil —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilPMunro (talk • contribs) 05:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: NeilPMunro (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Since you're reading policy pages, you might want to read up on Wikipedia:Autobiography as well. Powers ^T 13:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, Other stuff exists, and Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. While they're essays (i.e., not official WP policies), they contain plenty of useful information.

A word of advice: if you really want the article on you stick around, the strongest argument you can make is to add links to third-party articles written about you to the article's talk page. That's articles about you personally, not articles responding to articles you've written or articles citing articles you've written. This is a common issue with journalists; there's often plenty of reliable sources about their work, but little to nothing about them personally. And in order to write a biographical article, that's what's needed. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and stub. The current article doesn't even have anything that can be stubbed, but there's a case to be made for notability because of press coverage of Munro & Cannon's expose of the Lancet and there may be a couple of other pieces out there. I'll flag the article for rescue. THF (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LtPowers. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 09:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 03:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability is not established, and the obvious COI issue. Adam Zel (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Full Tilt Poker. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full Tilt Online Poker Series[edit]

Internet poker tournament. Subject seems to have received no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as is required per WP:NOTE. Sloane (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Subject has receuved innumerable significant mentions in reliable sources. Google News shows many mentions and a Google search shows 219,000 results. 2005 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google News seems to list only other poker sites, are there no serious sources covering this? And Google hits are never a reason for inclusion.--Sloane (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand your comment. Of course most mentions are on poker sites. It's a poker topic. I just added refs from the two most reliable sources available for poker tournaments. It is plainly obvious the subject has very, very, very wide coverage, and is covered extensively in reliable sources, so your nomination is baffling. 2005 (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I recommend you to read WP:RS. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That means sources like the New York Times or CNN, I doubt commercial poker sites have much of a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".--Sloane (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it doesn't mean that, and suggesting that a generic newspaper is a more reliable source than expert, longstanding, reliable niche publications is utterly absurd. Golf Digest or Billboard are are not authorities on geology, but they are among the best sources for golf and popular music. I reccomend you not edit niche articles until you have a better understanding of WP:V. These niche sources have a history both of relaibility, and in Cardplayer's case, more than 20 years of unchallenged general reliability. You seem to be making a case out of your own lack of knowledge and disrespect for sources, despite not presenting any evidence of unreliability, or even any logic in making this nomination. Additionally we aren't talking about a cure for cancer here. The article merely explains what the notable event is here, plus offers results. 2005 (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The publicated version of cardplayer would be decent, but the source that's linked now is the online version and just lists the tournament's results. Cardplayer lists literally thousands of tournaments, they're not all notable.--Sloane (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Make this a section in Full Tilt Poker. I don't think it's notable enough for its own article; it would fit in there just fine. PhGustaf (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the text portion as above, kill the table. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of reliable sources to establish notability. Also, to assume that a source isn't reliable just because it's on the subject of "poker" is just silly. Rray (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Full Tilt Poker. Macarion (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTPRN[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable internet radio. No reliable sources are present that prove any notability. Subject seems to have received no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as is required per WP:NOTE. Sloane (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Sloane (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't see the secondary sources needed to write an article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never even heard of it till seeing this deletion notice. Not notable and not referenced The7thdr (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rick Joyner. Best option for consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Quest[edit]

Unnotable book, which has been tagged as such for more than a year and the article was created on 28 November 2005. Lacks third-party sources. The only link is to the author's webpage. BBiiis08 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Books is notable because of controversy about the book. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable, not sourcedTroyster87 (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search for sources came up dry. No evidence of notability via significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There is some controversy associated with the book, but it really is based more on the author's repeated claims of divine revelation. Since I didn't see reliable sources discussing this particular book, it seems that a merge to the author, Rick Joyner, is appropriate. Also, if you have the patience for it (and I don't), it is entirely possible that some of the privately hosted websites could be accepted as reliable sources over at WP:RS/N to expand the article(s). Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After being solicited on my talk page rather judgmentally and aggressively I reiterate my previous position and the link provided only solidified my position. The sources only point out that the writer did a book tour with stops at Barnes & Nobles.Troyster87 (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Troyster87's statement. A_Nobody (talk · contribs)'s posting was unhelpful and unnecessary. BBiiis08 (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not currently sourced, and I hate working on any book to begin with due to the amount of cruft to be waded through. Then there are my feelings about this one based on what research I did - so I shouldn't be the editor to work on this article. I see enough evidence of notice and significance that I believe we can and should have an article on the topic, and hope someone is able to write a decent one soon. GRBerry 22:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge -- This appears to be a comparatively harmless little article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced articles are not harmless because the information could be incorrect and the readers would then be misinformed. BBiiis08 (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of citations from reliable sources, delete. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Issue regarding lack of coverage in RS not addressed. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip A. Haigh[edit]

not at all notable, no references whatsoever to be considered notable, autobiography Troyster87 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Autobiographical? Yes. No references currently given in the article? Yes. Article has previously been deleted via PROD? Yes. But none of those are the questions being asked here. The question is, is he notable by WP's policies? And the answer, from the small amount of research I've done, is absolutely. I've put what I've found over on the talk page for someone's writing pleasure.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 08:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy unless it's rescued. The nominator mixes up two concepts. A lack of sources makes something hard to verify and potentially unverifiable, but people can be notable through other means than the WP:GNG even if the sources to prove it are not yet apparent. Based on the information on the talk page I suspect Dori's claim it can be improved is true, but if it's eventually deleted, it should be for the right reasons. Unverifiability, not notability issues. _ Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep minor notability, but notablility nevertheless. I googled him and found references to two books, which I ahve listed. I cannot vouch for his outdoor hobbies etc. which thus remain unreferenced. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To answer comments on my rationale, this article should still be deleted, any claims of notability are refuted by lack of reliable sourcing and verifiability. Read WP:AFD.Troyster87 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of verifiable sources to support article content. BLP should not exist unless the article content has strong sources to verify content. Additionally, there is no evidence that sources exist to write a comprehensive article about the person. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent sources. Stifle (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12. (copyright violation of http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/photos/2008models/2008models-Yamaha-YZ85-2Stroke.htm) Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha Yz85[edit]

patent advertising Troyster87 (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Jazz Festival[edit]

non notable promo for unreferenced jazzfest in france, doesn't even have a french language version Troyster87 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep! Nominator, you should really look carefully before you make a claim of non-notability. First, if Miles Davis has played there, and if Jean-Luc Ponty, Return to Forever, Gary Burton, John Mayall, and Joan Baez played there in 2008, then it's notable. Besides, you could try a Google News search, and count the meaningful references--from the Globe and Mail, the Jerusalem Post, the New York Times (in 1998: "the Nice Jazz Festival, July 12 to 19, is a stalwart of the jazz circuit"). Need I go on? Admin, please close this quickly; nominator, please reread the guidelines. Sure, it's a bad article, but that's not a reason for deletion. Non-notability is (of the article's TOPIC), and this festival is highly notable. Drmies (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, where are the sources to back the claims of those artists performing there? Also there are tons of encyclopedically insignificant venues where highly famous acts have played or events for that matter. I did a google news search and it was fruitless. Please provide links to those sources and fix it if you want to save it. I remain unconvinced.Troyster87 (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Where are the sources?" Click on the Google link above, will you. I could say "not my job," and that it's yours, as a nominator, to actually look for these sources before you nominate an article. I'll cite from WP:BEFORE: "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." But I won't say it's not my job, and I am adding some of these sources, which are incredibly easy to come by, and perhaps next time you'll look before you take up other editors' time at AfD. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Another note to nominator: I see in the history that you did not notify the original creator or the two main contributors to the article that you were nominating it for deletion, nor did you mark it in the edit history that you were doing so. Please follow the procedures defined in WP:AFD; there are good reasons why the rules are the way they are. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i think thats optionalTroyster87 (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Drmies linked to Google News which listed indepth articles about the festival which means it meets the general notability criterion. The claim that the French Wikipedia doesn't have an article is moot. Wikipedia is a work in progress and if it took until now for one to be on the English Wikipedia, it's not unthinkable that no one got around to writing one in French. A lack of a Wikipedia article is only relevant when it was actively removed within the rules. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Drmies. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. I think we have established an early-closure worthy consensus here. The festival's 60+ year history deserves a better article, but for the time being, this one will have to do. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. copyvio. (Warning, video will lock your computer) StarM 04:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Sports[edit]

fails WP:N, promo/advertising Troyster87 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoons, Lampoons, and Buffoons (radio show)[edit]

Previously in Oct. 2008; no consensus.

5 half-hour episodes; no evidence of notability. The existence of other short-lived series that were notable don't prove this series is notable; nor does being broadcast on a notable radio station. StarM 02:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Films are considered notable when notable individuals have a significant role in their creation. Who worked on this radio show? =- Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response not a clue there's very little that isn't a wiki mirror. Only the "source" cited in the article which provides no info either. There's no evidence whatsoever of notability. StarM 02:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability, 3rd party sources--Rtphokie (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With regard to Mgm's comment and StarM's reply... I was able to expand the article to add episodes and episode summary, and was able to source the participation of several notable British journalists and commedians. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs)

Based on the FAQ the epiguides pages seem reasonably reliable, but I'd prefer it if someone dug up the original sources they based their content on to silence any critics. I'm witholding my vote at the moment. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete no reliable sources to establish notability or to make any of this verifiable.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein el gebaly[edit]

non notable individual, self promotional autobiography, poorly formatted unreferenced does not assert notability Troyster87 (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for cleanup. Yes, the article is badly written and unreferenced, but it does quite clearly assert notability for its subject, and that notability appears to be adequate for an article. According to the article, the subject has appeared in a number of newspaper articles, and has works in the permanent collections of several museums. All of these are evidence of notability, as are the long list of awards he has apparently received at the end of the article. Unless there's reason to doubt the veracity of these statements, this article is merely unsourced, not non-notable. JulesH (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the lack of references may be a problem, the article clearly asserts notability (which makes the nominator's statement invalid). Keeping in mind the article is relatively new, I believe it requires love from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Egypt or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, not deletion. The editor who wrote it appears to be new too. Helping him get to grips with the rules might also improve the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article needs to be entirely rewritten; right now it is essentially a structured list. It does indeed assert notability; quite strongly. However, I am a bit surprised that someone with that kind of international reach and so many awards would have practically no news coverage (the two news links seem to refer to someone else).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but this is a combination of a very badly written article with what seems to be a lot of puffery and some nonsense. It is pretty obvious that the subject is also the author of the article, and yet we have statements like these in the article: “He participated in the artistic Movement since 1960 till now”; and “Biennale of Saopulo, Brazil-1989”. The first statement makes no sense, and the second suggests that the author/subject of the article himself does not know that the event he supposedly participated in is called “Bienal de São Paulo”. Finally, there seem to be no reliable independent news coverage of the subject, as I noted in my comment above.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric O'Keefe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eric O'Keefe

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this article. Bongo matic 01:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete promo articleTroyster87 (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage Hipocrite (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No significant independent coverage. Adam Zel (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pimdox[edit]

Non-notable software; research found no sources and virtually no references to it. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete : software is non-notable, article is unreferenced and single-issue user created.Dialectric (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable. According to this message from the software's author it was only released three weeks ago. Curious that the most obvious reference was omitted ([19]). chuuumus (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Health effects of tobacco#Reproductive. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of tobacco on fetus[edit]

This article reads like an essay and I don't really think it has saving potential. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 01:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somebody's homework. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect into Health effects of tobacco#Reproductive.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I switched from "merge" to "redirect", since Mgm is correct. Also, hi Drmies!--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for homework. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable topic needs serious work howeverTroyster87 (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: it's not a bad search term, but this info is in the section mentioned by S. Marshall, above. (How you doing, SM?) Drmies (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as likely search term. There's no material to be merged since it's already covered. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Health effects of tobacco#Reproductive. The material is already covered at the target section so no need for merge. -- 11:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Health effects of tobacco#Reproductive which covers the topic adequately. The title is plausible enough. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Branhamism. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Message of the Hour[edit]

Unnotable term used by followers of William M. Branham (deceased). The article looks impressive, but a closer look at the sources and purpose shows that this "term" is not worthy of its own article. Much of the article is WP:OR sourced to various works by Branham. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I oppose deletion of this article as it does document the beliefs of a christian sub-sect. I have also contributed much to the article in question. It is certainly lacking in third party sources, but primary sources are plentiful. I would not be opposed to a rename. I also disagree that the article is original research, and almost the entirety is supported by the sources used, albiet primary sources. I am moving the contents of the article to my sandbox to rework with more inline citation when I have time. Charles Edward (Talk) 01:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Branhamism, which it overlaps considerably. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support merging. Charles Edward (Talk) 01:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With Branhamism, as per Mr. Lenahan's observations. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mayflower Beach[edit]

Non-notable beach. Little to no reliable sources. Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I can find no reliable news sources that discuss the subject of this article. There are many references made to the beach by websites about beaches (specifically Cape Cod). I consider those to be third parties that have no interest (monitary) on promoting this location. [WP:RS] doesn't specifically address this situation (that I can find) so I'm going with my gut here. If that many websites on beaches reference this beach, it seems notable to me.OlYeller^Talktome 01:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep beaches are notable, as are geographical features and large social gathering areas.Troyster87 (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is covered in several Google Books and also by several reliable sites about beaches. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The books found via Google Books don't rate this beach too highly, only briefly mentioning it, and giving it two stars, while numerous other locations get more.Also, according to this book, [20], the book is 1200 feet. If beaches are typically measured by their length, then it is definitely a geographic feature of some significance. If it is 1200 ft. squared, then it is about 0.0208% the size of an American football playing field, and not that significant. Unless of course, any beach is inherently notable regardless of size, in which case, I will withdraw my nomination. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found information on this beach easily enough; all the article needs is a little cleanup and some information added to it, maybe a picture. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Dennis, Massachusetts. The Dennis article covers the town's beaches already, although it doesn't have a lot of coverage. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Elkman until there's something more to say about the place than that it exists. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alev lenz[edit]

Appears entirely autobiographical with no established third party references. Google Search for "Alev Lenz" did not return anything beyond blogs, facebook, myspace, and youtube. Plastikspork (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears the cited released album is real, so perhaps that's enough? It still seems very "promotional". Plastikspork (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I am assuming that there is no notable record label behind those albums (the article gives me no reason to believe there are). Bar that, this is another MySpace artist. Drmies (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn and Drmies. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMI Scheduling Professional[edit]

Contested prod. Reads like a brochure for a university program. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete appears to be patent advertisingTroyster87 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - promotional tone; not even a hint of notability. . . Rcawsey (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EPiServer[edit]

fails WP:N and has no third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of their site they get roughly 220,000 mentions online (it seems to be a pretty specific term, with the EPiServer syntax) with most these hits on news reports, descriptions and resume'. I do not think the Fortune Cookie link is a hoax. Notable acheivements include running the content management software for IS Solutions [21] whose clients include Toyota, Toshiba, Saatchi, Visa, Nestle, Volvo and Webtrends. Does this satiate the notability? Is there reason to suggest that information on the article is inaccurate or misleading? No easy job to get advertised on IS Solutions, Targetwire and Fortune Cookie, let alone be hired as developers/consultants. All in all, poor but essential article in the land where that which is truly notable is so unattainable it is scarcely heard of. ~ R.T.G 16:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-consumer online business using Wikipedia as a free ad server. Reads like a press release. The article is uncertain whether it wants to be about a business or its product: EPiServer CMS is a Web content management system. EPiServer CMS is used to manage information on an Intranet, Extranet or a public Website. With EPiServer all co-workers can create and update the organization's website from a Web browser without any previous knowledge about creating web pages. It can be compared with ordinary word processing. EPiServer CMS is based on Microsoft's .Net-technology. EPiServer's partners adapt the framework and create templates and add-on modules. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about a "non-consumer online business" and the link it masks, WP:CORP redirecting to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) does not include the word non-consumer. Does that affect the statement from User:Ihcoyc (masked as "Smerdis of Tlön")? ~ R.T.G 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can click on links and find where they go, it seems a bit extreme to call them "masked". Nobody's hiding anything.

I personally think that linking texts with descriptive phrases makes what I write in these discussions easier to follow, especially to newcomers to the project, than tossing around cryptic shorthand links like WP:CORP or WP:CIVIL. Experienced editors know what they mean, but not everyone has that experience yet.

"Consumer" and "non-consumer" do not appear directly in WP:CORP (is this better?) But that notability guideline is simply an extension of our general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in reliable third party sources, and prefers general audience publications. "Consumer" here means, "might have been noticed by a reliable, third party, general audience publication", while "non-consumer" means that any notice would be in trade or online publications that don't make a strong case for notability. Since this article is referenced only to its own internal sites and to brief, press release statements on a Swedish tech news site, it wouldn't make the grade anyways. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has minor notability. That is a positive value. What do you say? ~ R.T.G 01:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is written like an advertisement, containing little more than peacock phrases about what its wonderful products can do for you. This would merit the current article's deletion even if the business were notable outside its field. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I am picking at. There is not one "peacock" word on the article. Not a "wonderful" or even a "better than". It is a simpe description of the product and that pertaining to it albeit an insufficient one. Some possibly crappy or non-notable CMS have the full article with third-party source based on the fact that they are GDFLed. EPiServer is actually one of the most notable CMS in the List of content management systems. We do not yet have the page Award winning content management systems on which it would appear. There are possibly 100 wiki pages on CMS needing lots of work (including deletions I guess) Note: quite a few CMS were listed to delete along with this one. Not peacock, not corporation, more notable in its field than most. ~ R.T.G 21:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to advertise products but is an encyclopedia. EPiServer maybe better that those "crappy" CMSs but if they have third party reliable sources giving more than trivial accounts of the product they meet the guidelines for inclusion. 16x9 (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 16x9, CMS is pretty non-notable for regard (publication, it stands on its own publications really) and of any articles I checked for comparison, third party source was often based on being listed as open lisenced (hence a very strong argument to keep a notable one or delete a whole lot more). I see you listed a few but this one is actually favoured by some massive corporate bodies and is nominated for the awards this year [22] (not that the corporations probably every heard of it...) But there it is. I think I will add a merge tag to Web Content Management System, Content Management Systems and Content management although a closer look may show something individual? ~ R.T.G 14:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: absolutely a noteworthy product in Scandinavia. Many big institutions are using or are going to use it. I've edited it to remove marketing speak and concentrate on the product and not the company. --Dittaeva (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment- Just because it exists does not mean it is notable. It needs significant third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well established product with substantial user base. Proxy User (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject .NET — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — whilst the article may need some work, it's pretty much the leading .Net-based content management system at the moment. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- do you have a reliable source that states that or are we supposed to keep because of WP:OR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16x9 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you have a reliable source that it's not? Proxy User (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not need one. To be included in wikipedia you must meet the WP:N guidelines and have third party reliable sources to verify claims. I might say Proxy user is a dick,^{[citation needed]}} it may be true but is not sourced. 16x9 (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Certainly you do if you're using that as a criteria to delete an article. Also, please keep a civil tone WP:CIVIL. Proxy User (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here you go. 16x9: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Though, as Proxy User has pointed out, whilst I appreciate you're a deletionist and that you seem to be looking to reduce Wikipedia's articles on CMS systems, you might want to try coming across as rather less confrontational whilst doing so — you'll find it leads to much more productive conversations with the rest of the Wikipedia community. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for assuming good faith. I would also argue all of those references are OR and are not reliable source as they are nothing more than press releases. 16x9 (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Assume good faith"? Why? Even when the evidence points otherwise? OwenBlacker is quite right, you're clearly on a mission to delete CMS articles, especially Windows based proprietary ones. I hadn’t seen the terminology deletionist before, but clearly it fits. According to you, everybody else has to prove why the article should be kept. Well, you haven't made a case that it should not be kept. As the nominator, the onus is on you to make your case, not the other way around. Proxy User (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secure digital forensic imaging[edit]

The term is a pure neologism which is currently only used for one device for cervical examination. True, there is no overt advertising in the article but "Ward Allen is a Forensic Imaging Consultant for SDFI-TeleMedicine". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - The article in question is a process that applies to people, organizations and federal institutions that handle digital forensic images (including digitally displayed documents such as a scanned paper or any displayed information - See the Federal Rules of Evidence on page 25). Imaging devices such as SLR Digital Cameras, CCD’s, CMOS’s, CAT SCAN’s, MRI’s, EEG’s, X-RAY’s and ULTRASOUNDS all produce digital images that have been used as court evidence. Their primary intent may not have been for “forensics” but when the digital data is requested or demanded by the court system, those digital images automatically become digital forensic evidence.

In most cases, medical/legal digital images are held in protected and encrypted environments (Due to various federal laws). With the advent of high speed internet connections, the encrypted forensic evidence is not being printed or burned to a CD as it is more effective and secure to transmit the files through secure digital “TeleMedicine” or “TeleHealth” conduits.

Delete It is possible that there can be a neutral article on the subject, but the presence of the section on one specific application, and the failure to find any RS at all using the term, makes the promotional nature clear. Better for someone else to start over under a proper title. DGG (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secure digital forensic imaging simply describes a process that is becoming more and more popular as health systems convert from traditional documentation to paperless methods. If you take a digital picture and it is used for evidence it is deemed "forensic" and all forensic evidence must have limited access (be "secure") to adhere to federal law. The use of digital cameras in forensics is emerging but the concept, process and laws are well established.

I make no attempt to hide the fact that I work in the industry however this is a process greater than anything I am involved in. A wiki simply provides an educational resource for those who are not familiar with it and summarizes it for those who are.

NOTES:

This is one of the pre-existing external documents named. It was released by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2004. If is useful in its entirety but pages 11 and 15 should paint the picture. U.S. Department of Justice - Forensic Examination of Digital Evidence: A guide for Law Enforcement

This is also a pre-existing external document from the FBI (Working with SWGDE) describing the usage of digital evidence. Again, it contributes in entirety but the IOCE International Principles at the end might be most helpful. FBI - Digital Evidence: Standards and Principles

This is a new link, somewhat general but also describing the emerging usage of digital data. I would be happy to link it if you believe it would help. Digital Imaging

The various internal links define the standard parts of the process (Including further requirements leading to the process with SWGIT and SWGDE). The external links tie them together from a legal standpoint. Please understand that this is my first wiki and I would appreciate any advice as to the type of references that could be provided to make this acceptable.

I am doing my best to meet your neologism requirements (To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.) however if there is an identifiable gap please let me know. As for the orphaning, am I correct in thinking you want me to go edit appropriate articles with a link to this one (as a way of encouraging cross development?)? I have added the category marker using an existing category at least for now...that is something I simply missed before.

Thank you. (P.S. I put this explanation in a couple of places as I am not 100% clear where it will be seen, I apologize for redundancy)

Ward.Allen (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the documents cited as references actually use the term "secure digital forensic imaging", so far as I can tell. This does not necessarily mean that the concept is not notable, but it does lead me to wonder whether it is using the correct title, and whether it might just need a move, and perhaps some editing to become more general. Inline citations would definitely help, too. Anaxial (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In the absence of anyone more knowledgeable in the subject area than I offering to fix this, it appears that deletion is the best option. Anaxial (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is allen ward's first article and it is very discouraging to new users to have their first article deleted. This article needs several references...perhaps an ((expert)) template would suffice rather than an afd? And while there may be a WP:COI, he has not advertised in the article.Smallman12q (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1': Here are some possible references from a simple google search(which yield 112k results)...

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Secure+Digital+Forensic+Imaging
http://www.forensic.to/links/pages/Forensic_Sciences/Field_of_expertise/Photography/
http://www.sdfi.com/
www.sdfi.com/downloads/Introduction_to_SDFI-TeleMedicine_09-15-2007.pdf
www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/DFRWSfinal.pdf
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/199408.pdf

Smallman12q (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and put on probation list for one month for the editor (and others) to improve it. Alternatively, userfy it, but with the likely outcome that only the editor will work on it. As it stands, there is no overt advertising (and therefore little acute harm done) but the article is transgressing WP:ADVERT, which is unsustainable in the long run. The article creator says "this is a process greater than anything I am involved in." I would take this at face value, and ask him to write an article on this greater process, with a broader title, and as a sub-issue it could mention the proprietary system here. The article creator is evidently a sawy expert content contributor, his comments above demonstrate willingness to conform to WP policies, he shows a healthy measure of good faith - but it is simply his first article. We should encourage people like him to contribute, outright deletion is not the right thing to do here. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to make whatever changes necessary to make this work and am watching this feedback trying to get a sense of where things have gone wrong and how to make them right. I would very much appreciate time to sort through this and consult with others (and learn how things work around here).

This is a term that deserves a presence as it is what most medical professionals using digital photography HAVE to do no matter what products they are using. The method of photography, security and tele-medicine can vary greatly (using different products/equipment etc) while the process remains the same (as per requirements defined on a federal level). The name itself pre-dates any company links given it is a self explanitory term (it is forensic imaging, done digitally and securely). The "telemedicine" portion is inclusive of the process (but not in the title of the wiki process because that WOULD be a conflict with a specific company name) because, of course, digital forensic evidence must be moved around amongst legal and medical professionals while adhering to federal law. This process can be applied to various solutions. If you take your personal digital camera, take a picture of someone's wound, they go to court and use the picture as evidence and it is proven legally to have adhered to the appropriate federal laws then the process is intact......... although that simple of an example does not sufficiently describe the process as the specific legal requirements play a large role (and it doesn't account for the secure transfer of information [telemedicine]).

I of course am more than happy to explore the concept of making this a sub-issue of a larger concept however, this really is the general process (in my head anyway, I am open to any suggestions), if I were to make a proprietary sub-issue, it would look very different. One thought is, if I were to refer to the equipment as no more than a "digital imaging device" (instead of a digital camera) and remove references to the colposcope, that would make it supremely general.....then it could be referring to any digital equipment (like an X-Ray, Ultrasound or even a colposcope with a camera or video recorder attached). The only problem there is making things THAT general steals away from the definition because most digital imaging devices are not used for forensic exams and while a rare perceived exception is a colposcope, that is not really correct because it is looking though the archaic lens system referred to in the original article (it is not a pure digital device, it is a digital device dependant on a non-digital one).

Please let me know if I am on the right track or if anyone has further thoughts. Thank you.

Ward.Allen (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a number of changes to simplify the descriptions and ensure generic content. Ward.Allen (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Country music. Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truck-driving country[edit]

Dictionary definition. Very few sources besides Allmusic recognize it as a true genre, and with no sources, this article has absolutely no chance of expansion besides delving into original research (yes, Dave Dudley and Red Sovine had big hits with truck songs, but does that actually make it a genre?). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment/Weak keep~~ ~~I really could lean either way on this one.~~ There are plenty of music-related sites that have a "truck driving country music" section: [28], [29]. According to this Amazon.com editorial (reliable?), a singer named Dave Dudley is the "father of truck driving country music". This site describes how "truck driving country" was popularized in the 70s. Here is a compilation of "truck driving country favorites". MP3.com confirms Dave Dudley as the father of truck-driving country music, and mentions Dick Curless and Red Simpson as important artist within this sub-genre. The Amazon editorial review of this CD mentions "truck driving country" as well. So this exists, but I guess the real question is, is this a notable genre or not? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The article title itself is misleading ("truck-driving country"? that'll be a road, then"). From the article it appears to mean "the kind of country music which may mention truck drivers" though with no citations. So can we expect articles on "egg-frying baroque" (chefs who like listening to Albinoni) or "surgical dance"? This is, without any citations, OR and as such has no place here. Bacon Rock, mind... Tonywalton ^Talk 01:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've moved the article to truck driving country music and added citations showing that this is an established genre of country music. Does that help with your misgivings? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following LinguistAtLarge's excellent revisions. I'd still like a Bacon Rock article, though... Tonywalton ^Talk 00:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Country music. It's a subsection of that, nothing more really. Bacon Rock sounds good though... --Ged UK (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are quite a few other country genres. I wouldn't want to see all of them merged with Country music. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, neither would I, though some on that list already are. I suppose that most of the other ones are more notable; they have more written about them that more clearly explains their importance to the development of the genre. I'm not convinced that this one is that notable. That's why I'm suggesting merging rather than deleting. If and when more is written about the genre (rather than just name-checked as somewhere to pigeon hole acts into) then it could be moved back out into its own article if necessary. --Ged UK 22:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very logical argument. I agree that it hinges on how notable this sub-genre is on its own. If it's lacking notability, it should be merged. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added above after struck-out delete viewpoint. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given sources and the fact that a reliable source such as Allmusic lists it as a genre. Well done to Linguist-at-Large. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge to larger gengre as a sub-genre for nowTroyster87 (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Country music. It's a sub-genre that's borderline notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. Brooke Bennett[edit]

non-notable congressional staff member DCmacnut <> 00:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability for this individual. JJL (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tentative keep government officials are notable, however this needs more sourcingTroyster87 (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clearly passes the notability guidelines under WP:POLITICIAN.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can you be more specific? Her experience is as an aide to a congressman and as a committee suport staffer--these are appointed positions that aren't even Senate-confirmed. JJL (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the original nominator and would like to clarify. This person is an appointed staff member in an individual congressman's office. She does not meet WP:POLITICIAN because she was not elected to the position. She is also not a government official, in the same sense as a high-ranking secretary of a federal cabinet office is. She is a mid-level staff member in a congressional office. While she plays an important role in the legislative work of Joseph Cao's office, she doe not rise to the level of notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. And I say this as a former senate staff member myself, who incidentially does not have his own Wikipedia article nor has a desire to have one.DCmacnut <> 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN yet. Only one source, so doesn't meet WP:BIO. THF (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Does not meet notability criteria. Adam Zel (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appointed staff members in congressional offices do not met inclusion criteria. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DCmacnut.Esasus (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Guitar Hero#Future games. I took the bold step of doing that -- as per the nominator's comment, AfD is not needed to redirect articles. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero V[edit]

No sources, unconfirmed, little information availible. Redirect to the main Guitar Hero page would be nice. Sam ^Blab 00:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guitar Hero#Future games until it comes out. JJL (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. There probably will be a Guitar Hero V, but until there's some hard info on it there's nothing to put in an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. The game undoubtedly will exist, but there's not enough concrete info at this point to split it into its own article. fuzzy510 (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma Statehood Stamp[edit]

Non-notable U.S. commemorative postage stamp issue. This stamp had no artistic, commercial or historic importance attached to it. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. LetsdrinkTea 01:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have generated sufficient publicity and is kept in specialized encyclopedias: [30] [31] StampNews - a specialty magazine newspaper CBS another newspaper, and Oklahoma state government. I think these, just from the first page of a google search is more than is required to meet WP:N by any of our standards. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory of every stamp or coin ever made. The stamp is not notable among stamps. 24.211.34.78 (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Oklahoma Statehood Stamp is Notable because it is part of a series of USPS stamps commemorating the entry of new states into the Union; Alaska's and Oregon's stamps went on sale in January 2009 [32] [33] and Hawaii's stamp is scheduled to go on sale in the summer of 2009 [34]. ProfessorPaul (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets RS standards. --^StormRider 03:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets the general notability guideline. Sources indicate what time it was for sale, why it was released, who painted it and pretty much any other detail you could wish to know about a stamp. I consider the fact was released as a commemorative stamp to celebrate the state as it having historical importance. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable among stamps. (If there is an article on the series of stamps, then merge.)--Dmol (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Educated Guess[edit]

Well-made article, but I don't see anything that establishes notability per WP:BAND. JaGa^talk 05:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against - I feel like it meets #7 on the requirements, they have spearheaded a completely new genre in American rock and roll. I mean, I've heard their album West Skyline Drive and it's like nothing Missouri's heard before. CJMylentz (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unsigned band with no claim of notability whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Starblind. Also has lack of references for it to be notable. Versus22_talk 06:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Turner (director)[edit]

Contested prod with addition of credits. However, none of the films listed as his credits have Wikipedia articles, and thus do not imply inherited notability of WP:NFF, and there are no secondary sources except IMDB establishing that the person and films actually do exist - however, IMDB is extremely unpicky and do not cause WP:BIO to be met. As I also stated on the prod, a Google search turns up nothing substantial. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 06:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, though not grounds for deletion, the original author's username implies WP:COI. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 06:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that this young director has directing credits for at least three notable productions makes this article worth keeping. Whether or not the films have Wikipedia articles is not the test for their notability. Esasus (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, delete because "no movies titled in wikipedia"? thats weird. --hnnvansier (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you misunderstand me. I do not say that the movies must have Wikipedia articles in order for the director to be notable. I'm saying that, as these movies are all his notability can be judged from, and that these have no articles, and that Google turns up nothing substantial, it simply is not apparent in any way that he meets WP:BIO. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 06:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The last two movies are respectively 18 and 5 minutes and even IMDB lacks any big cast member names or awards for these. The first feature film he did was released in Italy while the director is British. International release outside the country of origin is something that I think makes a film notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The way the article is written builds up a weak resume to sound as if he has directed multiple feature films, but this is not the case. Neither the director, nor his films appear to meet notability criteria based on third-party (and not IMDb) sources. Jvr725 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FreeIX[edit]

I had actually speedied this when I realised it had previously survived a VfD a long time ago. However it seems not to be notable. Martin^msgj 13:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: previous debate at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Free Internet Exchange Martin^msgj 13:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google news does list a number of sources which talk about FreeIX (e.g. [35], [36]). However they are limited in number, detail and scope; in my opinion they do not sufficiently demonstrate there is enough information to warrant an article. Anything important can be included in the article about the owner of FreeIX. Our article says this is Proxad, however their web page says they are part of Iliad so this may need checking! Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not having been discussed in the detail that WP:N requires. Themfromspace (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaunchPoint CMS[edit]

fails WP:N I found no third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This CMS was also previously known as "Conductor CMS". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a non-notable piece of software from what I could tell by a quick Google search. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kentico CMS[edit]

software that does not meet WP:N and has no significant third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - when searching for Gnews references for the company, all were press releases.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because as we all know, if something isn't getting press in Google News, it doesn't really exist... Proxy User (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If on the other hand one does a regular Google search, there are plenty of hits, everything from discussions about support on various OS platforms, to help forum threads. Just because it's not GPLed Open Sorce doesn't mean it cant be in Wikipedia. Proxy User (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And we all know, that just because it exist does not mean it is notable. Also "support" and "forum threads" do not equal third party reliable sources. There are many propriaty commercial products on wikipedia they just meet the requirements for inclusion. 16x9 (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not meet notability test; appears to be spam entry. --Mhking (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Couple of notable refferences have been added xpassa (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC) — xpassa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Kentico is a software used in 74 countries. It should be notable enough, shouldn't be??? drheemes (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.213.50.164 (talk) — 194.213.50.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The Information Week and CMSCritic articles seem to justify keeping this one. JulesH (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Did you read the CMSCritic article? I would not call that a reliable source and gave anything more than a press release. The info week article seems PRish but that still is not significant sources. 16x9 (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Information Week is an acceptable source. "Significant" is clearly a POV. Sorry you don't like the article, but it meets all the requirements and then some. Proxy User (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, one pseudo source at one point in the products history is not enough to write an encyclopedia. The article is a corporate advertisement that needs to be deleted. 16x9 (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So Information Week is a "psudo source" now, but not for the thousends of other articles that use it as a source? Can I expect you to nominate ALL the articles that use Information Week as a source? Or is this a double standard? Proxy User (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could you please write what exactly makes an advertisement from this article? History of company? List of modules? Please kindly find something subjective. xpassa (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of non-spammy, non-forum references on line, clear evidence of substantial customer base (i.e. usage), article references are well within acceptable range. I don't see the issue. WiccaWeb (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kim, PK[edit]

This was deleted via WP:PROD once and re-created. Mr. Kim does not appear to meet the criteria set at WP:ENTERTAINER. Google searches reveal no independent, third-party reliable sources. howcheng {chat} 18:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are minimal hits for "Paul Kim, PK" at Google, none at Google news and none at Googel Scholar under this title. Searches for "Paul Kim" at Google Scholar are about a notable scientist, Paul Kim. A search for "Paul Kim" at Google News is a mess - 10 hits about possibly 10 different people, none of which, it appears, is this guy. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IGG Software[edit]

Non-notable, stale (has had cleanup template for 4+ months), only incoming links are from two non-notable "products" by IGG Software, already deleted once, created by user who has a likely conflict of interest (see their contribution history) tedder (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability meeting WP:CORP. JJL (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs to be sourced, but there is evidence of meeting WP:CORP ([37]) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of those (not all) are simply press releases. tedder (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few reliable sources (not press releases). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you did- and I think this is rescuable now. Thanks!

These seem like small, passing mentions--perhaps some of their (ex-)software is notable (e.g. iBank), but I'm unconvinced about the co. JJL (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think iBank is certainly notable per the references I added to this article. Perhaps the company is not as notable, but I think it still squeaks by. That being said, if you prefer to redirect this article to iBank and rewrite the material from that perspective, that's fine by me as well. I just redirected iBank to this article, but maybe it should have been the other way around. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found three notable sources that aren't press releases or reprints (the fourth is local and probably debatable under WP:CORP). If kept, it needs a ton of work -- reads like a company About Us page now. Company Infobox would seem appropriate since there are credible references to company size, founder, location, etc. chuuumus (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FlatPress[edit]

no claim of WP:N and lacks significant third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 16x9 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable; no reliable sources to back up anything. The article also reads a little like an advertisement. And the author of the article has made no attempts to improve it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable CMS software with no 3rd party references. Potentially advert/spam, as it was created by single-issue user. Dialectric (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notabiliy. Borders on spam.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is an open software developed on blogs, so it'd difficult for me to assess; expert attention needed. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I added my response on the discussion tab on why I feel this article should not be deleted. Should I add them to this page? DavidB64 (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, that would be best--Rtphokie (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well it was deleted before I could paste my response from the discussion. Where can I find my deleted article so I might publish it on different wikies beside Wikipedia?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yet another web content management business, and every single one of them thinks they merit an article. Obvious advertising, and no claim of notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeLogix[edit]

No claim of WP:N and I found no significant third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, reads like an ad for the product, probably copyvio, almost an orphan and for good reasons. Not sure why this didn't qualify for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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