< 20 November 22 November >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. There is no agreement here on whether this article is merited or not, with disagreement over whether it meets the main notability guideline. This does not prejudice a discussion continuing on the talk page on whether a merge or redirect to somewhere is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon High Desert Grotto[edit]

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

Local caving organization under the auspices of the National Speleological Society. Per WP:ORG, [i]ndividual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area. Only sources appear to be local in scope and no evidence of meeting WP:ORG on a standalone basis is provided. --Kinu t/c 23:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) If I may interject, the issue wasn't the original lack of sources noting the grotto's influence beyond it's [sic] local area, but that the sources were themselves literally not from outside the local area... that is, there need to be sources from outside of the area where the group is based, to establish that the information in the newspapers, etc., isn't because of the "small-town newspaper printing local interest stories" effect (per WP:LOCAL). So Bend-area newspapers are nice, but notability is best established by something from outside that area. It doesn't have to be the New York Times, but anything non-trivial is helpful. --Kinu t/c 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Underground Express, The Oregon Caves N.M, Tillamook meeting, OPB TV, government state websites, are all from outside the area. Volcanic Vistas overlaps the local area, but goes beyond. Given much more time for editing, I'd find articles from The Speleograph as well that confer notability, and that publication is from outside the area as well. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 21:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis)[edit]

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

contested prod. not clear how this church is notable. RadioFan (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is simply one local article, only peripherally about the organization in question. "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability," from WP:N. Tb (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's so trivially obvious, can you do more than google searches, and show us some non-local articles which are about BBC as a prime focus of the article? Tb (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now included a number of both local and non-local RSs as refs in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the guideline allows us to look at that as indicia of notability where it would otherwise fail.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think if it were notable, it would have been noted more than that. It's a judgment call, and my judgment is, not notable. One article, one time? Tb (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline that allows us to keep an article based on the long history of the subject is when the subject would not otherwise meet the notability criteria. So this seems to me a perfect situation to apply that exception. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is not simply that anything which has been around a hundred years passes notability even if nobody talks much about it in the world at large. Tb (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the mention that longevity may be taken into account, does not supercede the requirement that notability be more than purely local. "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." Is there evidence from outside the area of notability? There is, AFAICT, mentions of this organization only in one local newspaper article. If that's it, it's not notable. If there is more, there has been ample opportunity to establish it. Note that the lack of notability is impeding the ability of the article to be based upon verifiable sources. Indeed, nothing in the article is sourced; there are no independent sources of information to establish even the basic question of how long the organization has been around, the names of its leaders, when services were in different languages, etc. The only sources seem to be unpublished internally produced histories of the organization. Consider how tiny this article would be if we removed that which is not verifiable under WP:V! Tb (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not clear to me that wp:before has been followed. See this and this and this. This church passes for notability on a number of levels. Longevity -- evidenced by the sources, is simply one of them, and the fastest way for me to note it. But I do think that before people nom an article for deletion wp:before suggests that it is incumbent upon them to spend 2 minutes doing a google search.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I did of course searche, and what I found was consistently mention that someone was a member, and only local press. Piper is mentioned all the time (no doubt he's notable), and BBC comes up, again and again, as where he is pastor, but not as the subject of the article. If we prune the obits, the articles about Piper, and so forth, we don't actually get anything notable: and, here's the kicker, we don't get anything to verify any of the stuff in the article. As an example, see that if you exclude "-Piper" from the Google Scholar search, suddenly you have only sixteen cites, you find that none of them is actually about BBC. If you think the article can satisfy verifiability, don't you think it should be possible to find verifiable sources for the stuff in the article so easily, given your confidence? I looked, and I couldn't find any. Perhaps the thing to do is to pepper it with citation needed tags, wait a months, remove the non-verifiable stuff, and then start the AfD again, with evidence that there is virtually nothing verifiable and non-self-published to rely on in writing the article. (Start with this: what, pray tell, were the sources used by the article's authors?) Tb (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I totally assumed good faith (even in the above). I just questioned whether despite good faith a wp:before review was engaged it. wp:org also has language re, if the depth of the refs is not as much as we generally would like, but the refs are many, notability can also be evidenced. If I have time, I will look at the hits more, with your comments in mind, though. As far as their source, it may have been this.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be even more productive to focus on verifiability, remembering that self-published sources, blogs, etc., are no good. Since both WP:V and WP:N are independent requirements, I suspect that if you (or the page's authors) could find actual verifiable secondary sources for the many statements made in the article, the issue of notability would be settled. And, if you (or they) can't find any such sources, then the article should be removed for that reason. (Note that the book you refer to is self-published, and is not sufficient to function as a source of verifiablity, or evidence of notability.) Tb (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've taken a few minutes and added a few. Even ignoring the self-published material, there is enough in the article now to confirm its 130 year old history, and if anyone wants to use google they can add more sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You added one self-published resource, but it's hard not to be suspicious. Do you have a copy of the book? Did you examine it? Let's assume, no. So what we have is one source in a directory, and still no independent verifiable anything about the church. I think it's time to edit the article to remove all that cannot be verified. Shall we? Tb (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow. We now have 10 sources between the references and ELs. The existence of each of those can be confirmed by the inline link. 5 are secondary, 4 are primary, and the last 1is in the middle but closer perhaps to primary (Baptist General Conference of America).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have to say, so far it's a whole lot of nothing. A lot of primary historical sources from an archive (which makes the article prohibited original research) and a few mentions. Look, notability is about people, outside the organization, taking note, on a broad and not local basis. That just hasn't happened. And the catalog of archive sources isn't itself a source: only the actual documents would be, and have you checked those?! Tb (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that primary sources don't count towards notability. But "prohibited original research" to refer to them? I didn't think so. Can you point to where that is stated? Perhaps I missed it. I belive that we do have some sources now beyond original sources. Where I couldn't get into the original source, I listed it as an EL rather than as a ref supporting any proposition. That way if this survives, people will know of its existence and can pursue it if they are interested.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, a citation that is about Piper, and not about BBC, and, once again, a directory source. Tb (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm looking at the same source. Jayjg's quote is about the church (as is much of the other text in the paragraph he took it from). And I don't know what you mean when you say this is a "directory source". The author does not appear to be connected at all to the church. I actually think this was a great find by Jayjg.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There essentially are none. That's because it's not notable. Tb (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are, and a number have now been added to the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RF. Actually, I see it slightly differently on two counts. First, there may well be a keep consensus expressed above, and the delete votes were largely cast before the full complement of RS refs were added. Second, all 18 refs relate to the church, but few if any are used in the article to discuss Piper.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freakscene[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this nightclub. Joe Chill (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ignoring multivotes from one user, consensus is either 'keep' or 'no consensus'. tedder (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank K. Wheaton[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. As for the rest of this, it is mind-numbingly non-notable, including the genealogy and the mundane life history. It's hard to see how anybody could think this meets WP notability standards, despite the references. It's important to remember that verifiability is not the same thing as notability. Qworty (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll agree that his notability is more in the sports area. His sports accomplishments are very significant. Very few sports agents have represented so many top athletes and produced major sporting events for them. He's worked with Michael Jordan, James Worthy and Flo-Jo among others. He's also worked with major entertainment figures such as Marla Gibbs and Milton Berle. Igbo (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 2 relists with light participation and split votes indicates no agreement at this time. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harihar Natu[edit]

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

I can find no evidence this individual is notable. The only online mention I can find is a picture of a house someone with this name owns, posted by his son - someone with the same name as the author of this aticle. I42 (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harihar Natu is a performar in vernacular languge Marathi,First how you will get reference in english news search only,ofcourse Marathi Languge google search returns one refrence here This reference is more about as an organiser of an event of his folk art kirtan. News Media any way happens to take very less note of folk art and artists and specialy so Indian media, How you will get, It seems to be true that his seems to have published this article , but this seems not a promotional article also, The same fellow by mistake written a little longer article at Marathi Languge wiktionay.
I feel we need to belive in people. A performer of 25 years with All India Radio can be trated as notable , Besides Marathi text given at wiktionary states that he has recived a state level award from Governer of Maharashtra .I do not find any reason not to treat him as notable.Mahitgar (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NZ-333 Alpha Azieru[edit]

NZ-333 Alpha Azieru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article which manages to be both an unsourced collection of original research yet most of it (the Specifications section) is a fairly clear copyvio from some primary source. No notability shown at all. Black Kite 22:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Despite the complete lack of sources, there's no consenus to delete or merge the content. I'd recommend that editors continue a discussion of cleanup and sourcing, and discuss a merge to View Askewniverse#Notable characters Fences&Windows 17:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of View Askewniverse[edit]

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

Non-notable list of characters. Notability is not established in the article, and no references are given, indicating that no usable independent study or survey of these characters has been made to establish notability. Not enough reliable and substantial third-party material exists to support a viable article. Mikeblas (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good reference for Silent Bob and his friend not for this list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a single movie but most of the characters appear only once. We have a policy in most TV series not to mention characters that appeared only once. Why follow a different approach here? Examples: "LaFours is a fictional character from the film, Mallrats", "Emma appears in a supporting role in Clerks II.", "Bartleby and Loki are two characters from Dogma.", etc. Especially the description of the last two characters seems to me like the plot of the film. This is confusing for the readers because it add extra weight to details that it shouldn't. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The article was formerly titled "minor characters." If we were to merge all of the other View Askew character articles (Jay and Silent Bob, Randal Graves, Dante Hicks, others), those appear in different media and in more than one movie. Jay and Bob appear in just about every movie, Randal and Dante in Clerks and Clerks II, and all four appear in the animated series and the comic books. I've been meaning to do it for some time but have not had much time to concentrate on the task. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jay and Silent Bob are notable and they already have their article. I would prefer an article for them and not merge them with character which appear in a single film. Characters of the Clerks can also have their article because if they were developed in different media I guess they should be articles in magasines about then. I can't think of any article discussing any of the one-time characters of the films covered in the article above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sources have provided here to establish notability which have satisfied those who have commented after they were provided that notability is established. They do need to be added to the article however. Davewild (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RTorrent[edit]

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

This non-notable software article has no third party references. The most obvious hits on google references searches prove the software exists, but do not show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By 'google references searches', do you mean just a straight Google? Because I see many hits in Books/News/Scholar. --Gwern (contribs) 22:26 15 November 2009 (GMT)
Those hits are trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the books/scholar/news searches and they were not significant. "You can use software like rTorrent to download torrents." is not significant coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second of two suggested torrent clients on the Debian Wiki and I've seen it recommended in a bunch of other places. It seems to be well thought of. Hga (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability is the criteria we wish to look for. Recommendations on user submitted content sites are not. Miami33139 (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is not a one-size-fits-all-good-for-what-ails-ya guideline; we just don't have good ideas about what makes notability for FLOSS or even BitTorrent software in general. Looking through Category:Free BitTorrent clients and at examples like Gnome BitTorrent or Tomato Torrent or Freeloader (software) or Miro (software), I don't see anything like the usual stuff in a BLP, for example; the only one with the usual panoply of MSM sources is utorrent. Unless one is willing to say that the entire category is rotten, blind counting of MSM sources would not seem to be the correct method. --Gwern (contribs) 00:24 16 November 2009 (GMT)
Part of the problem with pointing out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that it encourages people to go notice that it probably doesn't belong here. It really doesn't matter what the software does, or how it is licensed or developed. We don't document every software tool just like we do not document every model of toaster. It is a core principle of Verifiability that if we document something somebody else had to document it first. Most software is not interesting, even if it is unique, and something has to tell us that this software is not run-of-the-mill. Miami33139 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to wikipedia for some general information about this client and discovered the deletion candidate status. No I did not google first, I nowadays expect wikipedia to be the place to look for these things. I know a number of people who praise rtorrent, but before I look into it I collect some information. It is in the official software repository of my Linux distribution (and I imagine in many others as well). And no, the official homepage of the client is not the place to go for me, because should there be any items to criticise about the product, chances are that these are not mentioned there. So please, *keep* this article, it was really useful to me.

Update: just did some research on my earlier point: This page [1] lists no less then 10 Linux distributions have rtorrent in their repositories, including Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, SUSE and Mandriva. (read: the major players) This is also the case for OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.8.38 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, actually it somehow does in my opinion, in the meaning that it means that different third parties feature it. In a certain sense this is third-party coverage: it means that several third parties reviewed it and deemed it suitable for featuring on their distributions. It is in some way akin to peer-reviewed coverage.
  • More importantly, your argument about "first source" is totally disingenous. The user intended is that he expects to look here first before further search, to find a roughly reliable summary of information here, before looking for further sources -that's what an encyclopaedia is for, and I agree with him. --Cyclopiatalk 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must agree with the preceding comment. I go to Wikipedia before other sources just because most things that I actually want a neutral piece of information about usually exists here. If Wikipedia would delete all articles about things that are "not notable" in the sense they are fairly obscure to the majority of people, then it would (even if it was done to follow policy) suddenly loose so much of its usefulness to me (and others, I presume). If policy dictates that all software projects, bands or concepts that are obscure and not very well known be deleted from Wikipedia, then that policy is not followed very well right now, which suits at least me just fine. I just hope that is not the case.--Zond Fri Nov 20 10:04:51 CET 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 09:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Seedbox points to rTorrent and has a reference on Slyck.com that also mentions rTorrent in that context. Perhaps that is considered less user generated, though a Debian wiki reference would enjoy a higher reputation/trustworthiness. 62.224.48.204 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikis, including Wikipedia, are not reliable sources. Miami33139 (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, they have to print it on paper and call it The People's Daily, no matter how wrong something is it suddenly becomes a reliable source then. I like the spirit of WP:IAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.224.48.204 (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMSN[edit]

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

Delete. Just another non-notable clone of a popular chat client. JBsupreme (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Chicane discography. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love on the Run (Chicane Song)[edit]

Love on the Run (Chicane Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails notability at this time Alankc (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hoodwinked characters[edit]

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

A list of characters from a single film which consists of nothing other than plot summary. Wholly unnecessary and fails WP:NOTPLOT. PC78 (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is an incorrect statement on several levels. One it is not just "local consensus" but the consensus of both a large, active project and one that has been repeatedly upheld in GA and FA reviews. Two, "all other media" do not do it different. Novels, for example, generally have no character lists/sections at all unless its a lengthy series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Men's News Daily[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Men's News Daily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability, secondary sources, neutral point of view, self-promotion VegetativePup (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problems with the article are: lack of notability of the subject, lack of non-trivial secondary sources, lack of neutral point of view, and self-promotion by the author. VegetativePup (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further explanation, at the nominator's request:
"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations"
First of all, I found a wealth of trivial mentions of MND (far too many to list), indicating that it's a well-established, fairly prominent website. That said, WP:WEB suggests that websites should be the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial published works. Upon closer examination, many of the sources I located with Google only mentioned MND tangentially, although it's worth noting that they treated it as a fairly prominent site. Here are some sources that are independent of the subject that count as significant coverage:
  • [8] is an article about MND that appeared in several major newspapers.
  • [9] is a magazine article about MND.
  • [10] is a published online work about MND.
  • [11] describes MND as a "credible, daily news, commentary, sex roles, satire, irreverence, metropolitan trends," although I'm not sure if that counts as a reliable source.
  • [12] is a science journal that cites material from MND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.244.33 (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization"
N/A
"The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"
Not sure if this applies. For what it's worth, I was able to find articles from MND on other sites, although I'm not sure if any one of those qualifies under this criterion.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elysian Pictures[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film company. Joe Chill (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Films[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film company. Joe Chill (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hornbill Films[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film company. Joe Chill (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TaiKo Supermarket[edit]

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

Non-notable; doesn't appear to meet guidelines of WP:COMPANY PKT(alk) 02:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IShares DJ STOXX 50[edit]

IShares DJ STOXX 50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similarly to IShares DJ Euro Stoxx 50, this article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmud Jan[edit]

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

Can't find any newspapers or sources about this CynofGavuf 12:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chicane discography#Singles. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding All The Stars[edit]

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

possibly fails wikipedia notability guidelines, insufficient context and referances, not high charting at all. Alankc (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Chicane discography. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong in Love[edit]

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

seems to fail notabilityt. no context, one referance, can be included on main article. Alankc (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Chicane discography. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lost You Somewhere[edit]

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

almsot no context, one referance, doesn't seem to pass notability, should at least be merged, can be recreated if song becomes notable Alankc (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Duarte Design. Spartaz Humbug! 06:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Duarte[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Zhang He (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Jehangir Hormusji Kothari[edit]

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

Page was created in October 2007 and has not developed since. It merely says that the subject was a Parsi and a philanthropist - no assertion of notabilty and no detail to aid assessment of notability. Google search throws up Wiki copies but nothing of note. Emeraude (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. None of the references from gbooks or gnews say anything about the subject of this AfD, he is either mentioned in passing or a part of a list. The two other references put forth (one of which is the lone gnews hit) likewise only mentions the subject, saying nothing about him other than that he donated land. J04n(talk page) 10:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
  • Sydney Morning Herald interviews him and covers his trip to Australia, during his 11th world tour, and says that he is, "noted equally for his contributions to the Imperial funds during the war, for his generous gifts to his native city of Karachi, and for his activities as an unofficial ambassador of the British Empire in all parts of the world."
  • Newspaper report during his 1923 visit to melbourne during his 6th world tour.
  • The New York Times covered his visit to NY in its Nov 28, 1931 edition.
Abecedare (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. One incident does not normally make someone notable for wikipedia. Should reliable sources be found that indicates that this person is notable for multiple notable events, there is should be no prejudice against recreation—suitably cited and supported. -- Avi (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Washington[edit]

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

Only claim to notability was winning a game show Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put Your Arms Around Me (Texas song)[edit]

Put Your Arms Around Me (Texas song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

very little content, barely notable, and not likely to become more notable after 12 years. can be merged into main article Alan - talk 21:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pmlineditor ∞ 10:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halo (Texas song)[edit]

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

little content, not likely the song will become more notable after 12 years. can be merged to main article. Alan - talk 21:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Quite a large number of the comments incorporated all of the worst points of WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:GHITS, WP:WAX, and WP:ITSNOTABLE and were ignored. Bottom line is that the consensus is that the article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEB as there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. NW (Talk) 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a good idea to microwave this[edit]

Is it a good idea to microwave this (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A7 declined. Amusing videos, but the show doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB standards. Their subscriber and viewing rates are somewhat significant, but this and this are the only hits in a GNews archive search, which just doesn't cut it. I can't find much mention in other reliable sources, either. JamieS93 21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – references are used to establish and support notability. If they are lacking then so is notability. ttonyb (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment –The existence of other articles has no bearing on this article. Please see WP:WAX. ttonyb (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While this is true, I believe he is asking what is the difference between this and other articles that makes them notable, but this not? ░▒▓█▌Cm0n3y34▐▓▒░ 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment – Unfortunately popularity does not equal Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't want the fan base or the creators contributing. If that happens, you end up with an article full of fancruft and original research rather than a verifiable, well-referenced article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Unfortunately real world notability does not equal Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – So what you are saying is if it hasn't been featured on so many news shows or sites, its not notable? Cm0n3y34 (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It is not what I am saying, it is the Wikipedia criteria that applies here. A couple of articles, one very short and another of questionable reliability is not substantial coverage. ttonyb (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Boston Globe archives articles 7 days after the last update. ConCompS (Talk to me) 01:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: From Tubefilter: Tubefilter News has been cited by Variety, and its staff have been quoted by the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor, The Wrap, and BusinessWeek when covering the web television industry. All claims have sources backing up claims of validity. It would appear that Tubefilter is indeed a reliable source. They also operate the Streamy Awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbifriday (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Link removed - indication the link was infected with HTML/Iframe.B.Gen virus ttonyb (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: avast! caught that bugger in the process of downloading it as well. I would've posted it if it weren't for the edit conflicts. ConCompS (Talk to me) 01:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Umm. . . there was no virus. It was a JPG of the newspaper article, and mcafee (up to date) spotted nothing.
  • Comment – Notability does not transfer from one entity to another. BTW - there are only 523 Google hits. For some reason the numbers are not correct - you can see this if you go to the last page of the search. ttonyb (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Google search "Is it a good idea to microwave this" (without the quotes), and you will see 1,820,000 hits. December21st2012Freak Happy Thanksgiving! 02:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC
  • Comment - Are any of those his a reliable source? Also shouldn't you use quotes or you get hits with those words in any order? --Guerillero (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • December21stFreak, take a close look at the Google hits you get without the quotes, and see how many of those have anything at all to do with this throughly non-notable YouTube show. Please also make sure you read Wikipedia:Speedy keep carefully, this discussion does not meet any of the requisites for a speedy close. GlassCobra 02:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of WP:GOOGLEHITS just because there are a ton of hits doesn't prove its notable. --Guerillero (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double vote. --Zvn (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the above article I linked to doesn't constitute "significant coverage"... what exactly does? Multiple reliable news sources?--Jonny Paula (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, yes. Please see WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." GlassCobra 03:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There needs to be some rules changed by wikipeida. . . This is considered notable by many, and by definition, notable is :
adj.
1. Worthy of note or notice; remarkable: notable beauty; sled dogs that are notable for their stamina.
2. Characterized by excellence or distinction; eminent: formed a commission of notable citizens. See Synonyms at noted.
n.
1. A person of distinction or great reputation. See Synonyms at celebrity.
2. often Notable One of a council of prominent persons in pre-Revolutionary France called into assembly to deliberate at times of emergency.
I don't see "In more than x newspapers or news shows. The show has been featured on multiple video websites, has been in the news (apparently not often enough for Wikipedia), the hosts have been on TV, and the show has 173,839 users who subscribed to the Youtube channel. Who knows how many other users watch the show without subscribing? I (and at least 150,000 others) feel this show, and the hosts (Jon, Jory, and Riley) deserve a wiki page for Is it a Good Idea to Microwave This, as well as pages about the hosts themselves. ░▒▓█▌Cm0n3y34▐▓▒░ 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The deal is, if we didn't set definitive boundaries and criteria, I'm afraid the term "notable" would become very subjective. I agree that a few aspects of the notability guidelines may be flawed, but one person's perception of a subject being "significant/noteworthy" will be very different from another, and I think we'd end up with a mess. This is not just a website, it's an encyclopedia, and actually a very inclusive one if you think of others such as Britannica, which focus on topics like science and history. JamieS93 21:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The question, Talkingbirds, is what do we define as "Several". As far as I know, there is no true numerical value of several. Therefore, we can not quantify "Several" by saying that the show haven't been mentioned in "Several" reliable publications. The show has been featured in at least two, possibly more that are simply harder to find. I believe that we can not say with certainty that this article has not met WP:GNG. --Fbifriday (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an additional source (of unknown reliability) is here Is It A Good Idea To Microwave A Nintendo Zapper | Smash Gamers Kb3pxr (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That looks like a blog. And to the best of my knowlage blogs are not a reliable source.--Guerillero (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – All articles are held to the same standards. As pointed out above, the existence of an article does not justify the existence of another article. See WP:WAX. Each article must stand on its own merits and meet the criteria for notability. There may be other articles that should be nominated for deletion and you are welcome to nominate them. ttonyb (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My point is that the Smosh article was kept after being nominated, with fewer sources than this. Also, remember WP:BURO. I believe we are over-interpreting A7 in this case, as A7 "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source.", and does apply "if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible." The credibility given by the Boston Herald article does indeed state why the subject is important or significant. Also, the line included in the article "As of November 2009, the channel is the #93 most subscribed channel of all time with over 173,000 subscribers on YouTube.", which includes a verifiable source, is enough to invalidate the line in A7 that states that a nomination under the A7 section means that the article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". There needs to be no source to verify that claim, it simply needs to make a credible claim, which it is due to the amount of subscribers and the Boston Herald article. Therefore, the reason for nominating this article under A7 is invalidated. --Fbifriday (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The flaw in your argument is this is not a Speedy Deletion. This is an AfD. A credible claim of notability is used only to save an article from Speedy Deletion. Once it has made a claim, it has to actually demonstrate notability. A single article or two is not enough to support the criteria in WP:WEB or WP:NOTE. As far as the number of subscribed users to the channel, popularity does not equal Wikipedia notability. There is no indication of that as a criteria in WP:WEB. Keep in mind that "real-world" notability does not equal Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:WEB can not be used as an argument for deletion for this article, as the article does indeed meet the first criteria of WP:WEB. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". Multiple meaning more than one. There is no limit that must be met in order for it to be notable, it just says "Multiple". Two is "Mutiple". Three is "Multiple". 15 is "Multiple". There is no way to say that two articles is not enough, unless it's just your opinion, because two articles is multiple. Two articles are listed, one in the Boston Herald, which is a reputable newspaper with wide distribution, and Tubefilter, which is often quoted in widespread media organizations when discussing web television shows. It also meets WP:GNG. It has had significant coverage, meaning it was the subject of two articles which are independent. The sources are reliable, as per WP:RS. They also are secondary sources, as both sources are not associated with the material being covered. There is also a third article listed at the bottom of the WP article, although I am not sure if it is a reliable source, so I have decided to leave it out of my argument. But the two articles is enough to verify notability. --Fbifriday (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It wasn't really a "plea" to save the article, it was just a head's up that the show has a page temporarily. Jon was only saying to help improve the actual article itself, not vote on this AfD. ConCompS (Talk to me) 00:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason for keeping the article? I hope you know that your !vote will not be considered by the closing admin if there is no real rationale. JamieS93 19:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snide or not, Jamie is right - this is not a vote, but rather a discussion, and without a rationale for the opinion, why should the closing admin take it into account? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually intending to ask the editor for their own sake, so s/he may have the opportunity to defend their view with more weight. Some people may not know, but when others are agreeing with the label "non-notable", a single "keep" vote with no reason won't contribute to the discussion. Regards, JamieS93 14:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Kennedy[edit]

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

was undelted as a contested prod but this is unsourced and it a bio of a nn unsuccessful politician. Doesn't meet core content requirements, V RS and BIO Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Kerachian[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:Notability (academics): Only an associate professor, and "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." The fact that this is an autobiography and that the author included his full contact information leads me to think of this as self-promotion and a resume rather than as an encyclopedia article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Wiki[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. No evidence found that this is notable Triplestop x3 20:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By any chance though that I could continue to improve the article while moving it back to my userspace? ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 20:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

François Lejeune[edit]

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

Couldn't verify the existence of this person, so copyediting probably isn't worth the trouble. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony (singing duo)[edit]

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

Non-notable music act, known only for their appearance on a talent show. The article claims they have a record deal which may lead to future notability, but that would be speculation at the moment; WP:MUSIC requires a charted single or album, not just a record deal. I42 (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Per nom. But if someone can find a reference that actually says they're in the studio and can give a release date for an album, I would say keep.Pdcook (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They're nn. Petepetepetepete (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, I did create the article, so there would be no question that I would want to protect my own article. I think the concerns you have is the notability, because I created the article after I found some news articles about the record deal, and I decided to make the article to publicise the record deal, rather than their journey on Britain's Got Talent. The article was given a proposed deletion in it's early days, but it was declined after Cunard (talk) mentioned "removed speedy, notability is asserted by the sources and by the duo's participation in Britain's Got Talent". If I had created this article in June, right after the show ended, it would have been deleted in less than a week as they weren't notable at that time. The fact that there are reliable sources and is still nominated for deletion is ridiculous (in my opinion). This article should be kept for now, and this decision should be closed after a single/album is announced. Hassaan19 (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you created the article to publicise the record deal you should read Wikipedia:Spam. A record deal in itself does not directly confer notability, nor does even releasing a record. WP:MUSIC requires a charted album or single. We do not keep articles in case notability is established in the future; we create them after the event. I42 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation Pictures[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this studio. ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 19:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost tempted to just speedy delete both of these as self aggrandizing promotion, but since I've already commented here I'll leave that for any other admin who happens by. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm at it I should also note that I had to chop out a significant portion of the article because it was copy/pasted from the companies website. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The clear opinion here is that there are insufficient reliable sources to show notability. The argument that blogs can show notability for software may have merit, but this is not the place to determine that. Kevin (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SUPER (software)[edit]

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

This non-notable, uncited article has had various tags placed on it for two years. PROD was removed by an IP address without addressing the issues. The software has minor mentions in publications from books.google, and scholar.google.com, but they mention the software being used, not articles directly significant discussion about the software. This article functions as promotion for the software. Wikipedia is not a software directory, proof of existence is not notable. Miami33139 (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious!!!!! do you really want to delete this page!! Why don't you delete the whole wikipedia then go and have a chilled beer!!

FFmpeg official website has listed SUPER as part of the FFmpeg-Based Projects: http://ffmpeg.org/projects.html

MEncoder official website has listed SUPER as related projects under Windows: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/projects.html

Microsoft official website identifies SUPER as Vista compatible: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-vista/Search.aspx?type=Software&s=SUPER%20erightsoft

SUPER(C) is available for download from various sites:

  1. http://www.01net.com/telecharger/windows/Multimedia/encodeurs_et_decodeurs/fiches/33476.html
  2. http://www.afterdawn.com/software/video_software/video_encoders/super.cfm
  3. http://biblprog.org.ua/en/super/
  4. http://www.chip.de/downloads/SUPER-2009_17370353.html
  5. http://www.filehippo.com/download_super/
  6. http://www.free-codecs.com/download/super.htm
  7. http://www.freewaregeeks.com/?page=detail&get_id=43&category=38
  8. http://www.freshwap.net/finder/SUPER+++2009+(Build+36)+(Portable).html
  9. http://www.freewarefree.net/audio-and-video/1923/super-2009-build-35/
  10. http://www.get2use.com/download/super/v2009-build-35
  11. http://www.gigafree.net/media/conv/super.html
  12. http://majorgeeks.com/Super_d5117.html
  13. http://www.mininova.org/tor/2180960
  14. http://www.mpegx.com/view.php?detail=2539
  15. http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Video/Encoders-Converter-DIVX-Related/SUPER.shtml
  16. http://super.softonic.de/
  17. http://www.techspot.com/download.php
  18. http://www.videohelp.com/tools/SUPER
  19. http://videosaver.ru/blog/2007-11-08-3
  20. http://wiki.winboard.org/index.php/SUPER:_.FLV-_oder_.MOV_Videos_umwandeln
  21. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=SUPER+erightsoft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.108.44.41 (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the previous comment—the expression "as part of the FFmpeg-Based Projects" is slightly misleading, as it suggests that SUPER has "officially" something to do with the FFmpeg project. The fact is that SUPER simply uses components from FFmpeg and the FFmpeg website simply lists projects that use components from FFmpeg. That's all. The "If you would like to see another project added here, please send an email..." sentence explains that basically anyone who decides to use something from FFmpeg can send them an e-mail an they will list their project there. So it does not really say anything about notability whatsoever.
The same with the MPlayer website. Again, it simply lists projects that use their software in some way. If there is a new project that decides to use their software, they can list it there, too, whether it's notable or not.
As for the download links—for example the Mininova link. So someone put SUPER for download via BitTorrent. What exactly does it say about its notability?
And one more thing. The SUPER article has been constantly edited by anonymous users in exactly the same way. Someone put something less flattering about the product into the article, and then there was the anonymous IP address that removed it. And again, under a new anonymous IP address.
When the AfD template was put there, again, an anonymous user removed it (violating the Wikipedia deletion policies), when the template was restored, a new anonymous IP address removed it again... It always happens in the same hysterical fashion as shown above by 59.108.44.41. Which to me suggests that it could be a possible sock puppet who has an interest in having the SUPER article in Wikipedia (possibly the SUPER creator?)—J. M. (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever tried to send an e-mail to FFmpeg or MEncoder so they can list their your project?
Do you consider this as a serious argument/statement, Do you really under-estimate to this extend the process for adding a product to their list. It is like just send us an email and we'll add any software you want! come on..
besides, 59.108.44.41 did not "invent" the term [FFmpeg-Based Projects], it is in fact the title of their page on the left upper corner!
Have you seen this page, do like to talk about it? http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html
Finding links to notable products via BitTorrent does not constitute a prejudice to product itself!!
here's ONLY 4 examples amongst thousand others...
http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=microsoft+windows+Vista&cat=0
http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=microsoft+office&cat=0
http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=norton+antivirus&cat=0
http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=adobe%20photoshop
However if you really believe that SUPER creators are able to manage and put all these listed download links on various notable download sites, then they must have a real good reason to convince and are really proposing a good freeware otherwise it wouldn't be there.
As for this YouTube link http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=SUPER+erightsoft it shows the large number of happy users that are themselves happily promoting and sharing SUPER by pointing out its features through a video presentation.
What is notability? how do you evaluate it? based on which criteria? who decides? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.131.74.155 (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I did not object to the term "FFmpeg-Based projects". I said the sentence was misleading and explained why. Secondly, I did not say the BitTorrent link meant SUPER is bad, I only said it was completely irrelevant. It does not say anything about the notability at all.
And thirdly, I suspect 213.131.74.155 is yet another sock puppet. The same writing style, the same mistakes, the same tone, unsigned anonymous comment, it is the same thing as the numerous other single-purpose IP addresses that only ever do a single (favourable, of course) edit to the SUPER article (or this discussion) and then disappear forever. And then a new single-purpose IP address appears that does exactly the same thing... And so on. So I believe that all these anonymous IP addresses come from someone related to the product, and they just keep using new and new anynomous IP addresses to make it look like there are more of them. Sock puppetting is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia and users can get blocked indefinitely for that. It only tends to confirm Miami33139's suspicion that the primary purpose of the article is advertising the product.—J. M. (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here's a bunch of similar candidates for AfD They are loaded with single-purpose IP addresses during editing same case as for SUPER, I think they all deserve to be eliminated, exterminated.

  1. X264
  2. Gordian Knot (software)
  3. Virtualdub
  4. Avidemux
  5. AviSynth
  6. MediaCoder
  7. BSPlayer
  8. Audacity
  9. VobSub
  10. YAMB
  11. MP4Box
  12. LAME
  13. Avid Technology
  14. VLC media player


The second link clearly fails to meet notability requirements, as it is a blog, and blogs are generally not reliable sources—the notability guideline says a topic has to recieve "significant coverage in reliable sources" to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.—J. M. (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started using Super since the earlier versions in 2005, the product is pretty much straight forward and easy to use yet extremely handy to encode multimedia files from one format to another. Searching erightsoft in Google or YouTube leads to hundreds of hits, Super by erightsoft won the third position in CHIP German Magazine on March 2009, please keep it! http://www.chip.de/artikel/Vergleichstest-Alleskonvertierer-8_35478393.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasay rewelra babe (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that what I am proposing as a reason could be regarded as an exception to the notability criteria. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is "this class of subject" and why should blog mentions be relevant? Software tools already get special treatment on Wikipedia because of systemic bias. I don't understand the rationale that a GUI wrapper for some command line tools has something inherently special about it. Miami33139 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Martinez (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played professionally. Tavix |  Talk  18:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands from St. Louis[edit]

List of bands from St. Louis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:LISTCRUFT; as it is impossible to determine all the bands from St. Louis and this is better served as a category. Tavix |  Talk  18:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bands with red-links generally aren't notable. Why have non-notable bands on the list? Tavix |  Talk  21:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A red link indicates the absence of an article, not necessarily a lack of notability. Since there are thousands of notable bands and musicians that do not yet have articles in this encyclopedia, lists containing redlinks to articles that are yet to be written are perfectly valid. Categories, on the other hand, can only contain links to articles that exist, so serve a different purpose.--Michig (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hardly indiscriminate as it's about a very specific set of articles. There are undoubtedly a lot of bands listed who are not sufficiently notable, but that can easily be remedied by removing them. A short summary can also be added for each entry to give some context.--Michig (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted upon author request. JamieS93 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tondino's Paradox[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tondino's Paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay based on original research. Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Freud[edit]

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

I came across this article whilst I was looking up australian authors for my wife, and I don't think it meets the notability guidelines. Firstly, it's an unreferenced BLP, and there are very few google hits for Sally Freud - a google search for '"Sally Freud" caged'- not something I wish to discover pictures of, by the way, but the title of one of her novels! then there are just 246 hits, whilst her book "the middle of nowhere" gets just 96. Me and my wife been looking at the notability guideline for authors, and I don't think this article passes - and neither does she. We were just talking about it whilst she was making my ham sandwiches and so I thoght I'd send it along to AFD. Let me know what ya all think - but as the nominator, we are going to be going for a solid delete. All the best, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3o Gymnasio Agias Paraskevis[edit]

3o Gymnasio Agias Paraskevis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability, no encyclopedic value Constantine ✍ 17:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Closure: You might have been hitting that XFD tab too many times on the same article? ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, issue was resolved. ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 17:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Eastman III[edit]

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

Not notable. None of the references are reliable sources that support notability. Running for congress in and of itself does not make one notable. No Google hits supporting notability. There is some mionor coverage of his company's products, but that does not translate to this individual being notable. Singularity42 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as a WP:CSD#G12 - copyvio of various pages in the domain www.trainingplace.com. Black Kite 19:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Orientation Questionnaire[edit]

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

Blatant advertising and possibly in violation of copyright. ☆Pickbothmanlol☆ 17:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optipictual Art[edit]

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

Non-notable art medium. Article claims it is only used by a single artist, who invented the medium (and Google reveals no returns for "Optipictual Art" other than this artist). Article tries to build a lot out of unreliable sources - i.e. busisness/artist directories, etc. The only two things that could possibly be considered independent and informative area a) the artist was interviewed by a magazine about her art medium, and b) a couple online art stores use the medium as a search category (although that could possibly be because the medium is defined by the artist selling the work, not the store acting as third-party). Neither supports notability, and there are no sources (either added to the article or through a Google search) that have reviewed or commented on this medium. Singularity42 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus on Uncertainty theory delete the rest. Secret account 14:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertainty theory[edit]

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

Also:

Uncertain programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncertain Logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncertain Differential Equation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncertainty programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncertain Set Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncertain Process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncertain Calculus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncertain Entailment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by User:Good Olfactory at 22:04 22 November UTC)
Uncertain Set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) andy (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain Inference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) andy (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain Differential Equation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by Gandalf61 (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC) )[reply]

"Uncertainty theory" may be the next best thing since Relativity but so far it seems to have had little impact. I can find very few relevant ghits and almost nobody seems to talk about it apart from its creator, who apparently came up with the idea two years ago. I'm proposing that a set of almost identical stubs, recently created by an spa should be deleted because they are all unreferenced original research, failing WP:OR, WP:N and WP:VER. There's also a suspicion that one of the main aims of these articles is to promote the author's recent book on the subject, contrary to WP:SPAM. andy (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. References to a number of reliable independent sources have been added to the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. References to a number of reliable independent sources have been added to the article, that clearly demonstrate the notability outside of Wikipedia. (Also, a book in the third edition published by one of the most respected scientific publishers in the world already does establish notability "outside of wikipedia".) Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the thread at WikiProject Mathematics I have already mentioned a third-party citation from outside China. [27] It may well be that this theory has significant impact within China although it is still hardly known outside. Several experienced members of the maths project are watching the article and will see what happens.
The suspicion that this is about promotion of the book seems to be unfounded. All academics want to promote their theory in one way or another, there is nothing wrong with that. The book in question has had 3 editions. The books by this author have been around for a while, and there are no traces of advertising on Amazon.com. [28] I have looked at the online version of the Springer book, and on first sight it seems to meet the usual standards of this publisher and well worth reading.
It's hard to assess notability at this time, because coverage may be mostly in Chinese. Please leave this matter to the mathematics project, so that we avoid a combination of biting and systemic bias. The topic warrants at least a short mention in related topics such as fuzzy measure theory, so in any case outright deletion (rather than a redirect) wouldn't be appropriate. For redirecting we don't need an AfD, which is why the discussion in the WikiProject did not lead to this AfD. In case of any conflicts with the article creator we could still propose the article again as a last resort.
Concerning the other articles: These stubs are hardly useful. If they don't get any serious content soon (which seems possible), they need to be turned into redirects to uncertainty theory. Hans Adler 16:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you're not sure about its notability - and nobody else in that discussion is either - then it's not notable. Why? Because notability requires proof and there is none here.
In general I'd agree that something technical should be left to a technical group such as the maths project, but in this case it's pretty clear what the situation is (and btw I have a degree in maths so I understand where you're coming from). No independent sources, very few ghits. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that it fails WP:N.
The onus is on the author to prove that the article should be kept. andy (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you followed the Amazon link above? 3 Springer books and 1 Wiley book don't look like a complete lack of notability to me, even though they are all by the same author. It's also possible that this is merely a variant of something better known under a different name. I am not particularly interested in this topic, so I am not going to defend the article beyond what I have already said. I left a note in the WPM thread about this AfD. Hans Adler 17:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since they're all by the same author, who's the guy that invented the theory, then they don't count towards establishing notability. [29] lists a total of seven books, every one of which is authored by Baoding Liu. I've done a lot of hunting on the web and can find nothing that's been published on this subject by anyone other than him or his students from the same institution. As I said in the nomination the theory might be notable, but there's no proof of that and try as I might I can't find any. andy (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The primary reason adduced for deletion seems to be based on the suspicion that independent sources do not exist. However, as I indicated above, there are independent sources. At the time I did not have time to format them. But here they are:
  • Dubois, Didier; Moral, Serafin; Prade, Henri (1998), "Belief change rules in ordinal and numerical uncertainty theories", Belief change, Handb. Defeasible Reason. Uncertain. Manag. Syst., vol. 3, Dordrecht: Kluwer Acad. Publ., pp. 311–392, MR 1743910
  • De Campos, Luis M.; Huete, Juan F.; Moral, Seraf\'\in (2000), "Independence in uncertainty theories and its applications to learning belief networks", Abductive reasoning and learning, Handb. Defeasible Reason. Uncertain. Manag. Syst., vol. 4, Dordrecht: Kluwer Acad. Publ., pp. 391–434, MR 1927641
  • Klir, George J. (1997), "Uncertainty theories, measures, and principles: an overview of personal views and contributions", Uncertainty: models and measures (Lambrecht, 1996), Math. Res., vol. 99, Akademie Verlag, pp. 27–43, MR 1478002
  • Resconi, Germano; Klir, George J.; Harmanec, David; St. Clair, Ute (1996), "Interpretations of various uncertainty theories using models of modal logic: a summary", Fuzzy Sets and Systems. An International Journal in Information Science and Engineering, 80 (1): 7–14, ISSN 0165-0114, MR 1389944
  • Golubtsov, P. V. (1994), "Fuzzy set theory as an uncertainty theory and decision-making problems in a fuzzy experiment", Rossiĭskaya Akademiya Nauk. Problemy Peredachi Informatsii, 30 (3): 47–67, ISSN 0555-2923, MR 1299690
  • Resconi, Germano; Klir, George J.; St. Clair, Ute; Harmanec, David (1993), "On the integration of uncertainty theories", International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 1 (1): 1–18, ISSN 0218-4885, MR 1253850
  • Oblow, E. M. (1987), "O-theory---a hybrid uncertainty theory", International Journal of General Systems. Methodology, Applications, Education, 13 (2): 95–106, ISSN 0308-1079, MR 0914396
  • Vladimirskiĭ, È. I.; Kiyasbeĭli, Sh. A.; Shishonok, N. A. (1986), "Uncertainty theory in the realization of problems of the reliability of complex systems", Decision-making methods and systems. Applied problems in the analysis of solutions in technical systems (Russian), Riga: Rizhsk. Politekhn. Inst., pp. 17–21, MR 0979772
These are just some of the relevant papers on MathSciNet with "Uncertainty theory" in the title. Many more papers can be found with a wider search that includes the abstracts and reviews. I hope this lays to rest any belief that keep votes are based on "suspicion". Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of those citations are to publications that seem to pre-date the alleged invention of the theory by Baoding Liu. There are many theories that deal with uncertainty, but the question is whether this particular capital-U capital-T Uncertainty Theory is something notable that merits an article. Despite this afd none of the authors of the articles have added a single independent reference. andy (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know which year you are basing this on, but you can't take the year 2007 mentioned in the article for that. I guess it refers to explosion of "uncertain X" terms that we are observing with the satellite articles. We are dealing with a Chinese speaker who is struggling with the English language. Apparently the Uncertainty Theory Laboratory was founded in 1998 [30], Liu's Wiley book "Uncertain Programming" came out the next year, and in 2004 there was the first edition of the Springer book "Uncertainty Theory: An Introduction to its Axiomatic Foundations". I agree to the extent that most of the sources above probably don't refer to this precise notion, but it's hard to say this with absolute confidence without checking the details. Hans Adler 13:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the AfD should be closed as no consensus. The "element of the blind leading the blind" factor is no basis on which to delete an article. The above references easily show that the topic is notable, although as I have already indicated, I agree with Rubin's solution to merge these articles into "fuzzy X" whenever possible. Trovatore also has a good suggestion: just keeping the one main article and redirecting the rest. Whatever happens, though, an AfD where 90% of the commentators have been unable to assess accurately the notability of a subject because of their unfamiliarity with it is clearly problematic, and it is not an ideal place to make these kind of content decisions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I disagree. The point is that articles have to justify their inclusion. There is, if you like, a presumption of guilt. WP:FAILN gives some clear guidance which this afd is following, and simply giving up isn't a terribly good alternative. At this stage in the afd any of the recommended outcomes is possible: tag it, merge it or delete it. The mathematically inclined contributors to the debate seem to be tending towards the latter two options. That's fair enough. andy (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well... the references given above can easily be added to the article. Will that "justify the inclusion" of the article? It will certainly render the reasons proposed for deletion totally bogus. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should remind you that the evidence of notability presented at an AfD can be fairly cursory, because AfD is a very blunt instrument. The above references should be ample to convince "mere mortals" that the topic is notable. We don't usually take a default position of "delete" if experts do not suddenly materialize to examine all of the evidence presented at an AfD and affirm that it supports the article as presently written. If, in the future, an expert shows up who disputes the relevance of these references above, then he or she is certainly welcome to rewrite the article, or take the article back to AfD if appropriate and make a well-reasoned informed case against it. While I hope it is the former that happens, I certainly wouldn't object to the latter. But it isn't fair to keep moving the goalposts, as is being done in this AfD. At first, there were no ghits. Then a bunch of very reliable sources were produced, that may or may not be precisely relevant to the article, as presently written. But those were dismissed as irrelevant on rather dubious chronological grounds. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is moving the goalposts. There are very few ghits, so there's no evidence of notability to be found that way. The articles as originally written cited no independent sources. A bunch of independent reliable sources were indeed found but reliable proof of what? The chronological grounds for dismissing them weren't spurious - the theory was allegedly invented in 2007 (or maybe 2005) but the sources pre-date that by as much as a decade, so they can scarcely be proof of the notability of the theory, can they? What they show is that people have been using the term "uncertainty theory" for a long time but not that "Uncertainty Theory" as per the original version of this article. I see you've now rewritten it in such a way as to relegate Prof Liu to the sidelines. That totally changes the meaning of the article and probably obviates the need for deletion, assuming the original author doesn't change it back. Let's leave it a couple of days and see what other people think. andy (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latest round of objections centers on the idea that there is some kind of Uncertainty Theory (with a capital "T"). Although the article had been written from this somewhat naive point of view, the fact is that people have been studying these things for quite some time from a variety of points of view—and I am by no means an expert. I disagree that it completely changes the meaning of the article—the article was likely written by a student first encountering these ideas through Liu's book, which the author naturally takes to be the definitive account (it is not, really, but we should be willing to forgive that oversight). At any rate, there are many potential sources that treat this topic from a variety of points of view, so there is definitely room for expansion of the article beyond the views espoused by the Chinese group. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main article at least, notability for it seems plainly to have been demonstrated. Paul August ☎ 17:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have access, you might want to read the 2009 SIAM review of Liu's book (MR2515179). This does put Liu's work into a larger perspective, not just stuff that "could be related", but things that actually are directly relevant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for all your advice. I am improving my article with my friends, and I will make the inference clear. If you check the article, you'll find they have been impoved a lot. There is no cheat in all the articles. We want Uncertainty Theory to be known by more people, so they can do more help to daily life, just as probability does. Besides, probability is unaccepted to the mathematicians before 1930s, but it is hot in finnance now; and we are sure that uncertainty theory will have a widely use someday. Thank you! Please don't delete my article, they will be improved soon.Pingfanlj (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

about a week ago, so i am unfamiliar with writing an article, this is why i didn't write references the first time. 4) My friends are improving the articles. However, we are all student, so we don't have much time to do such a job, this is why the articles are improved slowly. 5)MR2515179[31],Dobois do some research in fuzzy theory with different methods. As uncertainty theory is not perfect now, so the method to study it may be different, and someone(unwill to open to other methods)may say others are wrong, just so so. Thank you all! Please don't delete my articles, thank you!--Pingfanlj (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, G3. Non-admin closure. Rnb (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naggro[edit]

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

Dictionary-like entry of a slang neologism. Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaicho R. David Farzinzad[edit]

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

only personal bad speaking Swissk9 (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is architecture[edit]

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

contested prod and contested redirect. Unreferenced essay. RadioFan (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Roddy[edit]

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

Previously deleted by PROD. Article fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to no sufficient third-party coverage. --Jimbo[online] 13:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Hudson Park UFO sightings[edit]

North Hudson Park UFO sightings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect, Merge, or Delete Could be merged or redirected into North Bergen, New Jersey. Eh, it's an option, but without real sources, I could get behind just deleting it as well. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa George[edit]

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

The article fails WP:BLP1E; the subject is only described in reliable sources in terms of this child molestation event or the individual parts of the event and therefore cannot have a standalone article on Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 11:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted per author request. JamieS93 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Netsniff-ng[edit]

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

Not notable software. No significant coverage. Pontificalibus (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pontificalibus, this software has been developed internally at the Max-Planck-Institute and recently been released Open Source (and in a few weeks it will be integrated into the Debian/Linux project). It would be a pity to delete this, because this technique used is rarely known, most of the sniffers uses the standard libpcap-api which is not that performant (on high throuput packets will be dropped because of lack of processing resources... the reason for this is that the packets (buffers) have to be copied from userspace to kernelspace and back again which is very time intensive). Of course, I am willing to point this more out if you change your mind. Thanks.

Comment Whilst this may be a wonderful peice of software, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The subject of any article needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Maybe in the future this software will have lots of people writing about it, so we can then have lots of references to use in the article to show it is notable. However at this early stage I can't find significant third-party coverage. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, sorry, I forgot to add the Ref. As 'third-party coverage' it was part of a talk/proceedings at the international Open Source Monitoring Conference in Nueremberg, Germany and it has been presented to professionals in this area with a very positive feedback. (http://www.netways.de/en/osmc/y2009/uebersicht/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netcrash87 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REM (Real Estate Magazine)[edit]

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

Non-notable trade publication. Pontificalibus (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you Milowent. Yes, I have a personal stake in the article as it's a family business, but I'd prefer that wasn't a known factor here (because your only evidence is my user name, which is an embarrassing giveaway :-P). For the record I'm not entirely new to Wikipedia, I'm aware of its policies, and I feel I've followed the guidelines thoroughly. I'm not writing this article for the novelty of it, I'm writing it because I feel this is a notable subject - and me having a personal stake in the article shouldn't be a reason its deleted if it hasn't affected the article's quality. I've gone about this as objectively as possible.

I'm afraid unlike the "Red Pepper", I'm unlikely to find any secondary news articles about a Canadian trade publication, especially in a UK daily. However, I would argue this is a notable subject as it is the only trade journal serving the real estate industry in Canada, it has existed for 20 years, and it circulates nationally. Any article on a Canadian real estate subject would likely cite this magazine, but it is more difficult to find media talking about other media, especially in the case of a trade journal (rather than simply a general magazine). Finding secondary sources will not be as easy as it was for the Red Pepper.

Some examples of other trade journals that are (apparently) considered notable (in that they haven't been nominated for deletion): Playback (magazine), The Engineer (magazine). They also cite the primary source, and (unlike this page) have no secondary sources. However they still exist as Wikipedia articles (likely) because they are considered notable in their industry. There should be no double standard in deleting this article, then.

That said, I will continue to search for secondary sources (though it should be noted I have already listed some). Given the evidence I've laid out I don't think there is enough of an argument for deleting this article. --Willmolls (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Thanks to my Lexis-Nexis account with Ryerson University I've found an article citing REM from the Toronto Star. I'll add it now. Thanks for your help guys! Willmolls (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've added a Toronto Star article citing REM, can we officially call this subject notable and end this deletion discussion? --Willmolls (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 10:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NME for "Newspapers, magazines and journals", Real Estate Magazine qualifies under this attribute: "significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets". The Canadian real estate industry is a non-trivial niche market, and this publication is significant in that it is the only of its kind to serve it. Yet again I have to refer you to Playback (magazine), The Engineer (magazine) as examples of articles that are considered notable for the same reason.--Willmolls (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that real estate could be considered to be a "niche" market in any country. For that to apply, there would have to be some qualification such as "listed buildings," or "ex-celebrity-homes." Guinness (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Combs Field Airport[edit]

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

This airport no longer exists. The former airport's FAA code has been reassigned to a heliport at a hospital complex. The former airport is not sufficiently notable to be saved as a "former airport". The heliport at the current hospital complex is not sufficiently notable to convert the airport article to a heliport article. Therefore, I believe the best alternative is to simply delete the article. Canglesea (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I can tell, neither the former airport nor the heliport are notable, so the point you make is somewhat moot. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • you're saying it's not notable but are not presenting any evidence or guidelines that cover airports, so your point is also moot. riffic (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 10:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus was that the passing mentions of the game were insufficient to show notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck, Marry, Kill[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fuck, Marry, Kill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has had tags for citation for notability for over 18 months and it doesn't seem to have improved at all. I see no attempt at resources beyond societal satire, and the result is no notability since things are happy left with a citation needed tag. A mention on a few "shock value" media programs isn't going to cut it. Ironically, a mention in The Onion is as close to a "reasonable" source here to show its worth, but it's only a mention in the caption of a fake photograph. Oh, and even after that all I suppose we'd need verification(?!) of it all. Fun. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Since I have no idea how AfD worked 5+ years ago I'll just assume it was an experiment at the time. One I'm very glad has been improved significantly since. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails notability guidelines, along with other policies. If anyway feels a redirect is appropriate then it can be created after deletion. Davewild (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chain of life[edit]

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

Strong delete. In fact, it should be speedied. This is just some rubbish that someone has made up. It has no credibility and is a blatant breach of WP:Notability, WP:CITE and WP:OR just for starters. --Jack | talk page 09:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...Um. Since I'm not even 100% certain what I'm supposed to get from this article, I'm not sure what to rate notability form. I'll go with WP:OR as an "official" reason as to how this can't possibly be notable, since the only things without sources might be the most common of common social happenings, and this doesn't doesn't fit in that category. I do admit it would appear to be verifiable due to the pictures, however. It might have been CSD-able, but no risks here. The only category it would come close to is A3, and things of this length aren't usually marked for that. Well. Can we WP:DUCK test to a newly-established and 100% enforced WP:HUH? that I just invented? Yes. Let's do that. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable silliness. Agree with Datheisen that going through AFD doesn't hurt anything on this one. Photos are not sufficient in any way to establish notability without outside support. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Not notable and probably not safe.--Digthepast (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoran Lazetich[edit]

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

Not notable SyG (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Australian Idol (season 7)#Sabrina Batshon. The keep arguments based on limited recent press coverage and her fan base are weak, and the argument that she doesn't pass WP:MUSIC is well argued. There is material here that would be lost in a redirect, so my interpretation of the debate is a merge. Fences&Windows 17:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Batshon[edit]

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

This page has been previously deleted, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Batshon. This page has been recreated because of a brief appearance on reality television show Australian Idol. This appearance alone does not assert notability, as per the exclusion of a separate Wikipedia article for most of the contestants on Australian Idol, with notable exceptions of winners and contestants who have had charted, successful record careers. Other assertions of notability (as discussed in the previous deletion discussions) are a mention in the speech of a politician and performances at talent shows at RSL's, which are local, town-wide competitions. Meadia coverage has been incidental to the show, and non-reliable sources such as forum posts have been used. Subject is not notable per WP:MUSIC due to not having any charted music and not meeting any of the criterion. The only thing that makes it any different than the last deletion is the Australian Idol appearance, which was brief and insignificant. Hoogiman (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, find it totally reliable because of the Australian Idol appearence, why should American Idol's have articles and Australian Idol's not?. She has also won a lot of talent competition and her appearence was neither brief nor insignificant. Facha93 (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Talent competitions do not assert notability, especially local talent competitions. American Idol is the top rated television programme, and perhaps the winners and contestants are more culturally significant with more media coverage and charted singles of their performances on the show. The subject of this article does not pass WP:MUSIC and if you view Notable alumni on the Australian Idol article, very few non-top 2 Australian Idol contestants have their own articles, and if they do, they pass WP:MUSIC with charted singles, which are an indication of notability. The subject of this article has no charted music. It has been previously determined as per a previous deletion discussion that the subject is not notable, and several brief appearances on a television show does not make the subject any more notable. Per WP:BIO, trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. The sources of notability asserted on the article are trivial and related to the show itself. Given all of this, how is the subject notable?Hoogiman (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If u though a comment on my talk page will make me change my mind, you were wrong. Although it's true that she doesn't has any charted music, Idol hasn't finished and no alumnee has released any single before the show ends. I still think she is reliable and that she passes the notability status and if u don't think she passes now, in the future she will. 19:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Facha93 (talk)
  • Comment: How does she pass the notability test? You still haven't given any single valid reason, and I have outlined in my original post why things such as local talent shows do not make the subject notable. Does she pass any of the critereon in WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC? I would argue all (which is very little) media coverage is trivial or incidental, and the subject is not currently notable. Even if it passes one or two criteria, this does not make the subject notable, with the may on the policy page. Note that it seems user lacks familiarity with the policies WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC or at least, in referencing them. Could you point out sections of Wikipedia policy that make this subject notable? Hoogiman (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: additionally, preempting notability does not actually mean the subject is currently notable. Also, if we examine the impact of Australian Idol on the music industry List of music releases from Australian Idol contestants, only a few contestants from the last three years have had an impact on the local charts. A brief appearance on a show does not create notability in itself. Hoogiman (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
U're getting really annoying, she pasess the criteria in WP:MUSIC in number 9, 10 and 12. Facha93 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In WP:MUSIC No. 9 is the only critereon that would be even remotely close for notability. Coming in 10th place in Australian Idol itself does not warrant notability, as per the only Australian Idol being notable the ones with a commercial release, listed in List of music releases from Australian Idol contestants. Luke Dickens, the runner-up of last year's competition is not notable enough for his own page, and to keep with the consistency of editorial concerning this subject, coming in 10th is not notable in itself. For No. 10, the compilation album for a choir has never charted and No. 12 would be a separate broadcast for this person. Once again, this article has been previously deleted, the only thing that has changed since last time is an appearance on idol, which given my reasons outlined above does not assert notability in itself. Subject is not currently a significant contributor to Australian music and is currently not notable. Hoogiman (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/who/celebrity-interviews/article/-/6190872/australian-idol-farewells-sabrina-batshon/

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/tv/australian-idol-evictee-sabrina-batshon-declares-the-show-a-fake-and-needs-new-judges/story-e6frf9ho-1225780791280

Along with the Daily Telegraph coverage already cited, that's more than enough to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Does a couple of articles assert notability? I'd assume that there's an obligation to cover idol and an interview is going to happen regardless.

[[35]] [[36]]

Places 11th and 12th got an interview on the same site (this news site interviews all idols), and I'd imagine news coverage in WP:MUSIC would be related to some kind of contribution to the field of music, as opposed to obligatory for a show.

Wait... it seems every idol in the Top 12 gets an interview from this site... does that make all of these idols notable now?

[[37]]

The second article you point out is sensationalist news for drama, and I'd argue that this article is not particularly extensive coverage. Like before, articles in the Herald Sun cover every idol, so I'm not convinced this asserts separate notability.
Now the critereon says: Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
I would say these news articles are quite trivial to the show of Australian Idol. Are there any news sources that assert notability outside of a single appearance? If anything this only would denote inclusion on the Australian Idol page itself. It doesn't assert any particular contribution to music by this artist which asserts notability. Note the may in the top of WP:MUSIC... I believe it requires more than a couple of weekly-reserved-for-idol news articles to make a subject notable. Any significant non-idol coverage or coverage at all for that matter? Hoogiman (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terms "trivial" and "non-trivial" are defined in WP:MUSICBIO:

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:

* Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] * Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. * Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The cited coverage therefore fits the definition of non-trivial: it is about the subject specifically rather than, for example, a mere list of which contestants progressed to particular stages of the competition; it goes into significant detail, and involves editorial input. The fact that the coverage in other media stems from her Australian Idol appearance does not in itself make it trivial: I would even argue that this strengthens rather than weakens the case for notability. Many TV viewers know of her and some will seek further information. Why should we restrict this when it is verifiable and complies with current policy as written? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps trivial is the wrong term that I used. I'll now point to WP:NOTNEWS in Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. I'd put this more along the lines of tabloid journalism, and as per my comment at 22:49, 16 November 2009, every subject on this show gets routine news coverage. Independently significant? I'd doubt it. I meant trivial in the sense of, incidental to a regular coverage of a show, not trivial in the sense that is on that page you pointed out. Also, note the may in the policy. Just because of about... ...three incidental news articles, most of which are tabloid-like does not assert notability. As per WP:NOTNEWS, this regular coverage (as outlines with the articles for EVERY contestant on the show) does not make the subject an independently notable person outside of the show. I'll ask this again... what makes this subject significant outside of the show that creates notability as a separate subject? There is none in this current point in time, which is why the subject is not notable. Hoogiman (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, the only reason for notability is the show itself, in which I will refer to my band/band member, TV show/TV contestant analogy. By your definition, any reality show participant who has even had minor coverage outside the show, or a recap conerning them is notable? The Amazing Race has had 334 contestants in the show's history, and every contestant has some form of coverage in relation to the show. (For example, interviews, which is one of your assertions of notability and recaps, which is another form of a news article you gave.) Now, because of this minor coverage... are all 334 contestants, despite more than 90 percent only being significant to the show itself, now notable subjects worthy of their own articles? I think WP:NOTNEWS might be the refutation for the sources you've listed. Hoogiman (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9.Has won or 'placed' in a major music competition. 10.Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, 'performance in a television show' or notable film, inclusion on a notable 'compilation album', etc.

Sabrina headlined 2 songs, and performed alongside the Australian Girl's Choir and the National Boy's Choir for a Sony produced album "The Spirit Of Australia" Release Date: 10.11.00

"In November 1998 Song Zu produced the album "Australia's Christmas Spirit" on behalf of QANTAS, featuring the Australian Girl's Choir and the National Boy's Choir. The album went on to be a phenomenal commercial and public relations success, selling 71,000 copies and raising $410,000 for the Starlight Children's Foundation." http://www.sonymusic.com.au/artist/info.do?artistId=100346

Sabrina placed 10th in a major music compition, Australian Idol and hgad also won the McDonald’s Performing Arts Challenge, in the open age Contemporary Vocal solo section.

Just becuase none of the other idols have wiki pages doesnt mean anything, and in fact Ricki Lee Coulter and Paulini have wiki pages and they didnt win the show either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nymphonicz (talk • contribs) 08:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Generally speaking, "placed" is taken to mean "top three finish". 10th is I suspect not what those that crafted that guideline had in mind when they added it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: Firstly, the two artists you mentioned have successful, independent, charted commercial releases. Note this is a fundraiser album, and upon searching australian-charts.com, this said album has no entry and hence, has not charted. [[38]] That is my first point... perhaps the singles were presented to QANTAS passengers, but it does not seem to be significant commercial release. That being said, if it is, then it is the choir itself that is notable. Notice how on this catalogue page that you quote, there is no mention of Sabrina Batshon... ...at all? Just because one sings on two tracks, this is not strong enough to be an subject independent of a choir. What makes the figures of this publisher less reliable is how there is no record of this album charting. Notice the may on the policy page, and this argument treads a very fine line.
Secondly, the performing arts challenge seems to be a corporate-organised, non-notable competition. I'd compare the notability of this competition to any local talent quest. There seems to be barely any coverage of this subject. Secondly, 10th place is not notability in itself for a separate article. Read my comments above and I give many reasons for this, one of the ones I would point out is the band/band member analogy, and this subject is not notable separate of idol itself. The two other idols you mentioned have multiple albums. Notice how the runner-up last year is not notable enough for a separate page? Hoogiman (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think this comment follows along with any of the discussion or reasons against proposed in this deletion discussion. How is she independently notable of Idol? How does she pass WP:MUSIC? How does she pass WP:BIO? 1. This article has been previously deleted, because the subject is not notable. 2. The only extra assertion of notability with the recreate is an Idol appearance, which is not notable enough to be worthy of an own page. A mention in the Australian Idol season page would suffice. Hoogiman (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points, but isn't it generally considered good practice to have separate linked articles rather than detailed sections in articles which whose length may become cumbersome? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Disagreement over whether the article passes the notability guidelines or not. Davewild (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss India CT[edit]

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

contested prod. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Zero Google news hits. References provided appear to be either DVD sales sites or primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added more 3rd party references Wikiuser7777 (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no policy or guideline that prohibits the creation of notable local events. Cunard (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. While there is a majority of people voicing keep opinions here reading the discussion reveals a split between whether the coverage is sufficient to establish notability or whether the coverage fails WP:NOT#NEWS. As such am closing as no consensus. Davewild (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Enforcing Peace[edit]

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

A non-governmental medal awarded by an organization with dubious notability. Has been deleted from ru-wiki already. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 07:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Information The Russian Wikipedia afd is here: [42]. Here's a Google translate (you'll need to go to the original to link to the pages cited).TJRC (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Medal "For peace enforcement"

Regional public organization with the enterprise for the production of symbols has established a medal. Sources other than the site organization is not given. The significance of the organization under a big question. Pessimist2006 08:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Add. Establishment of the awards was widely reported in the press [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. SashaT 10:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • X Delete a momentary interest in the press, but there is no encyclopedic value. Seelöwe 10:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • X Delete - no award, but a PR stunt. Wikipedia writes about the medals, but not their virtual display on websites or promotional campaigns, producers of symbols. In an article on the organization itself was looked would be appropriate .-- Vissarion 11:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • X Remove this medal has no significance .-- I. 15:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • X Delete. Not significantly ShinePhantom 08:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Outcome

Removed under discussion. EvgenyGenkin 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a different Moiseyev (M.M); the general's initials are M.A. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 06:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PHA training[edit]

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

Topic does not satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. This is a bodybuilding training theory that can be summarized in 5 words (much like 5x5 or 10 sets of 10 programs).Quartet 05:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nom has removed the merge proposal I was referring to above (see diff) --Cyclopiatalk 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"British fitness guru Matt Roberts has used the PHA (peripheral heart action) training system with clients who want to lose weight and reduce body fat, and they've experienced rapid results. You can benefit from his training regime in his book 'The PHA Workout'. PHA stands for peripheral heart action. It's a way of exercising that uses resistance training with weights in a way that makes your heart pump faster, like aerobic exercise."

Second one is 2507 words and half of them deal with the work out and what it comprises of. Hope that helps! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I formatted them a bit but I'm unsure about them -it seems both share the same URL and at least one of these requires payment. Could you fix that? thanks! --Cyclopiatalk 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A better ref is for example this chapter, perhaps? --Cyclopiatalk 19:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails WP:NOT. Davewild (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people in Playboy 1990–1999 by birthplace[edit]

List of people in Playboy 1990–1999 by birthplace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Firstly, I don't see any refs for the dates. Second, it appears to violate Wikipedia:NOT#STATS. Third, it is already covered in the individual decade and model articles. MBisanz talk 07:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. -While there were spam concerns, editors supporting the article pointed to the not-insignificant coverage. Both positions are reasonable, and no clear consensus developed. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobicip[edit]

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

Delete Created by a single-purpose editor who is here purely to advertise his or her own product. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note although the NYT reference is just a blog post, the app wasn't mentioned in the actual paper. And the "groundswell of support" online petition at petitionsonline only collected 152 signatures. Point being the app seems fairly non-notable. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed as well, a previous article advertising this software was speedy deleted. Mobicip Online Safety AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To make the case for notability, please also see the other reviews besides New York Times in this version of the article. Among 100,000 apps on the App Store, this app has been listed in the Top 100 paid apps under the Education category since August. It has the best customer reviews among comparable apps on the App Store. The information mentioned here is independently verifiable, but has to be done on the App Store and so can't add references here. Whatsurstory (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware I take it, that we tend to dislike people using Wikipedia as a billboard to advertise their own products, we even have a content guideline explicitly explaining it. Wikipedia:Spam AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. But, given the secondary sources, do you still feel there isn't enough notability here to merit an article or stub? I will work on modifying the content to have a neutral point of view, if that is the point of contention. Whatsurstory (talk)
Sorry even given the secondary sources that I've seen I don't see the notability. Each of them have reviewed hundreds, if not thousands, of applications for the iPhone. Some of them review multiple applications every single day. The fact that people have written reviews of your product doesn't prove notability.
You also said that your app is in the top 100 paid education apps. If you think that qualifies it as notable, do you think we should automatically have articles on all the applications in the top 100 paid education apps category?
I'm sorry but what makes your app any more notable than any of the other thousands of iPhone apps out there? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean that at all. The article was meant to be a stub that can be referred from this page on Wikipedia that lists available content control software for different platforms. This is the most popular content control software for the iPhone or iPod Touch, illustrated by its presence in the Top 100. Would it merit a presence on the list based on that? Whatsurstory (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So your goal here is just to have your software listed on that "List of..." article? Sorry but the only reason we have "List of" articles is to point to articles. And the only reason we have stubs here is because people haven't gotten around to writing articles. The idea isn't to that a page can either be an article or a stub. And those "List of..." articles get deleted quite frequently, because again the intention is that Wikipedia should be a collection of articles, not lists.
Do you have a source that proves that your software is the most popular content control software on the iPhone? And I'm not asking for you to tell us that if we analyse the iTunes Store we'll come to that conclusion too (that would be original research). I mean an actual reliable third-party source that says "Mobicip is the most popular blah blah blah". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than top 100 lists like this this and this and the fact that no other comparable app is on the list, there is no independent third-party source that mentions that Mobicip is the most popular. Whatsurstory (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So back to the review==notability argument. Given that appadvice has reviewed somewhere in the region of four to five hundred apps, are they all automatically notable now? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What don't you understand about multiple sources? Joe Chill (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does it make if one site reviews hundreds of products or three or four sites review hundreds of products? Out of all the sources there is only one that isn't in the business of reviewing software every week or every day. One. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you only have that opinion about software? Do you think that film or book review sites don't show notability? Your opinions are very bias and not supported by anything. Articles don't get deleted in AFD by opinions like yours. Joe Chill (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have that opinion about everything not just software. Just because a film or book is reviewed doesn't make it notable. There are whole industries that have developed around reviewing anything and everything, simply having something reviewed doesn't make it notable. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
f you start selling a piece of software, and it gets such reviews, it is notable. Full product reviews are the sort of RSs that get written about products, and have uniformly been accepted as such. The criterion of historically or technically significant for products, however, is I think your own invention. for products. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Those are excellent examples of the sort of group reviews that are not RSs for notability--they do not give significant coverage of any one product, but discuss a type of product, and give comparative statistics and a brief evaluation of usually dozens and sometimes hundred of similar products.--except for automobiles, which they do give full reviews, and where I would indeed consider them significant--and also except for an occasional featured review of a single major product. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's examine these reviews in the article then. There are 5. Three are trivial, consisting of one to three paragraphs.
  1. NYTimes - This online-only review hides most of the review behind a link, but clicking through shows the rest of the article is about other software not this one. This is a trivial, routine, Consumer Reports style review.
  2. UnwiredView - This also appears long because it shows a bunch of screenshots and single sentence paragraphs - clearly a review designed for the ADD set but is not actually detailed. Is UnwiredView even an RS we should consider for notability? It's a two person blog.
  3. about.com - Shows the routine page splat that drives their advertising revenue. This is not good coverage
  4. Ventura County Star - This is so far the only undeniably mainstream RS that gives extensive coverage and, unfortunately, it's a regional C-list paper with a low circulation promoting a local business. Does this actually confer notability? We would not accept this as conferring notability on any other product.
  5. Appadvice.com - A group blog that accepts ads from the products being reviewed, with close to 600 reviews, how does this separate Mobiclip from any other iPhone applet? The point of notability is to separate the routine run-of-the-mill product from things of significance. As you said Consumer Reports does, this is one of dozens or hundreds of similar products. Does this review from a blog, in the context that they review anything the blogger chooses to with no editorial discretion, show any significance? If so, when can we expect to start documenting the Sunbeam 3916 Heritage Series 2-Slice Toaster? It's reviewed, in-depth, from a specialized RS at least as credible as appadvice.com.
DGG, what I'm asking, is for a critical review of sources when they are presented. You said you want to keep this on the basis of reviews. How do these reviews show notability? When looked at critically, they do not. If we simply accept large numbers of references that claim notability without examining them, have we actually determined anything? Miami33139 (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm. You don't have a problem with people writing articles on Wikipedia about their own products or services? You're fine with Wikipedia being used as a billboard? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Also the curent version has copyright concerns. Davewild (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ringling Redskins[edit]

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

Non-notable sports club. Little to no substantive coverage found. Previously speedied twice with no improvement--bringing here so any attempt to recreate can be speedied on sight per G4--though I'm of the mind that this article needs to be salted if deleted. Blueboy96 06:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any secondary sources, thus can't make it notable per Wikipedia guidelines. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The IMDB text appears to have come from a blog, but that ultimately is a distinction without a difference. No prejudice to recreating a properly sourced article that shows notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episode)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Users (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like this page is copied straight from IMDb and has no verifiable secondary sources (and probably aren't any notable enough for this episode). Mike Allen talk · contribs 06:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC) ((Indeed, the editor copied the plot summary straight from IMDb: [46]. So it can be speedy deleted as a copyright violation. TJ Spyke 15:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The thing is a lot of popular drama shows DO have pages made for every episode, and I mean EVERY episode. (The Sopranos, L&O: CI, etc). I don't have time to AfD all of them. Lol. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 01:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Super Gran. . –Juliancolton | Talk 00:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Granny[edit]

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

Can't find any notability independent of Sandlot. There isn't any real content here worth merging. A google news search [47] shows no more coverage than things like "Sandlot makes games such as Super Granny" and that is about it. The article used as source is written by the company creator so it doesn't qualify as significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. It is at best a redirect to the company without a merge. Unless someone can provide coverage by reliable non-blogs on this game, or some evidence of awards or something, I can't see any justification for keeping an article on this. Crossmr (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect A search turned up no coverage other than the routine coverage and I could find no awards other than those declaring the software as being "virus-free", "spyware-free" and the like. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • if there is a Super Gran article, we might be better off turning it into a disambiguation page or something.--Crossmr (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KSP Sound Player[edit]

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

Non-notable software audio player. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tarkhan clans[edit]

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

List of names: no indication of notability, no references and virtually no context. Were it not for the fact the article is long-standing I'd suggest this was speedily deletable (A1/A7). In addition, nothing else about the article seems to meet the definition of a list in the Wikipedia sense - in particular, it does not 'organise information' - none of the entries is a link (well, one is - but it links to a mirror of the same page) - it is literally just an alphabetically organised collection of names. I42 (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Moise-Szalla[edit]

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

Perhaps two dozen Google hits, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors and none of which remotely cover the subject in depth. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Biruitorul Talk 04:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No sources showing notability have been uncovered through 2 relistings. A former proponent now agrees that it lacks notability as well. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting Square[edit]

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

Non-notable big-box complex. ---Dough4872 04:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CEDAR Logic Simulator[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordian Knot (software)[edit]

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

I have used this software - collection of otherwise independent tools. It was useful. However, the article does not meet our criteria of notability. It was a favorite tool of peeps who frequent forums and blogs but it never broken the glass ceiling into mainstream notability. As it is no longer developed, it is not going to have any resurgent mention to become notable. Miami33139 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The merge suggestion is excellent, but I don't think there's sufficient consensus to close it that way. Of course, any editor is free to propose merging in the normal manner. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Models of collaborative tagging[edit]

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

This is a reseach essay, not an encyclopedia article or encyclopedic topic. Prod removed by author with no improvement or comment. Reywas92Talk 19:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are direct description of published models of collaborative tagging. I think they should be kept. Perhaps need minor editing, any comments on specific edits needed are welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.49.47 (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Percy Gardiner[edit]

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

Non-notable person whose sole claim to fame seems to be that he's the maternal grandfather of the King of Jordan; however, notability is not transferrable.  RGTraynor  02:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is not suitable for an encyclopedia, but for a genealogy book. --MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

  • Reply: Since over ten thousand soldiers received the award in WWII (presumably where he'd have received it), it's not likely, but either way the issue's sheer speculation with no place in an AfD discussion. Either there's solid evidence that Gardiner passes the notability thresholds for WP:N - in which case it should be presented - or there isn't, in which case the point is moot.  RGTraynor  07:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Timberlake[edit]

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

The album is not an official compilation but just a fan release. The album is not notable enough to have its own article. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 02:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical software[edit]

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

Article is primarily a massive linkfarm. Blatant violation of WP:NOTLINKS policy. Talk page indicates it has been speedily-deleted before, and possibly the subject of another AfD, but I can't find a record of that. In any case, it's a clear violation of policy. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unwieldy/unmaintainable argument applies, only if they are no criteria to determine what is notable enough to be on the list. The simplest solution to that non-problem is to list only the programs that are notable enough to have their own article. jonathon (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lava Kusa – The Warrior Twins[edit]

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

The article seems to fail WP:CRYSTAL and looks like blantant advertising. Pickbothmanlol 01:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Relief Method[edit]

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

Author has a history of writing articles that directly or indirectly promote a non-notable lawyer, Gerald Wolfe. This is no exception. If you actually try to access the references, they are either not relevant, trivial directory listings, or just broken links. The term itself ("Financial Relief Method") does not appear to be notable. Ultimately, this article is attempting to inappropriately promote the lawyer. PROD declined by author without reasons (after being given a Level 3 warning about writing articles about Gerald Wolfe.) Singularity42 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the original author: This article is not about Gerald Wolfe. I was trying to post a new section on a response to common financial crisis. This term has been mentioned several times. I realized that one link was broken and have replaced it with an objective press release that mentions this company and their approach to Financial Relief. I can't help it if it's a new term and doesn't have many cites or if many cites are from the company that initially created it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki publishing (talk • contribs) 12:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

How is this article not about Gerald Wolfe? Except for the link to the Wikipedia article on Real estate, every other link is to something about Gerald Wolfe (his business directories, press releases from groups that he runs, etc.). The article is specifcally implying that Gerald Wolfe is the person to talk to about this so-called method. There are no independent references to "Financial Relief Method", the topic that is suppose to be the subject of this article.
Even if this article is not an ad for Gerald Wolfe,Finanical Relief Method is not notable. A Google search reveals only two hits (not including Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors). From your own comments: "I can't help it if it's a new term and doesn't have many cites or if many cites are from the company that initially created it." That means it is not notable. Singularity42 (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the author: Gerald Wolf is one of the creators. It is not about him; it is about his idea. It is notable as it has been recognized recently as an up and coming method during the recession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki publishing (talk • contribs) 12:38 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. While there was significant interest in a merge, all the referenced information all ready was present in the existing article. If some of the unrefenced information is needed for some reason, I'll be happy to provide a copy. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Finale (American Idol 8)[edit]

Grand Finale (American Idol 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grand Finale (American Idol 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grand Finale (American Idol 8) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - Unnecessary content forks from American Idol 6, American Idol 7 and American Idol 8, where most (if not all) of the content already exists. Therefore, no need for merges. The episodes do not pass the notability guidelines on their own and the content is to the parent articles. Dale 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NAFTA & The 100 Mile Diet: Economic Implications[edit]

AfDs for this article:
NAFTA & The 100 Mile Diet: Economic Implications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original essay which ties 100 Mile Diet and NAFTA. The references cited are either about the diet of about NAFTA, but not about both. Hence the article fails WP:SYNTH badly. - Altenmann >t 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy Film Company[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film company. Joe Chill (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Google doesn't have even two pages listed when I attempted to find sources. Pickbothmanlol (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not eligible for speedy deletion as there is indeed a claim of notability in the article. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs some work, but this dose not mean it isn't relevant. It needs some citations, but it is not deletion material yet. I'll give it a week and then update my decision.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could not find any reference material or coverage other than a youtube video. Has not released material and appears to simply be more of a student project. I'm sensitive to the difficulty in finding sources for non-english material, but I simply could not turn anything up. Kuru talk 18:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. No evident agreement as to whether or not the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Currently the nominator is the only editor arguing for deletion, but they seem to provide a strong case which is backed up by relevant standards and policies. There are a number of keep "votes", but they are weak in nature and often don't address the main issue. Overall, I can't see any consensus either way. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MurmurHash[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted for (although having plenty of references) for not having any wp:reliable source references at all. The article's subject is thus not currently wp:notable. Article was rewritten and recreated without solving this problem in any way, and hence we're back in an AFD again, not so very long after the previous one. Basically in the absence of a reliable source (with proper editorial control and peer review of the information) then the problem is that hash functions are two a penny, and there's no reason at all, under the Wikipedia's policy that this should be kept. This is particularly so after we had a previous delete for the same reason. This article seems to me to be intended to be a form of advertising right now, the Wikipedia is not supposed to be here to create notability. - Wolfkeeper 21:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I anticipated this reaction, so I checked with both of the admins who had deleted the article previously and got their input and permission before restoring it. Both agreed that the Hammer academic article and the NIST listing are sufficient WP:RS for notability. For some reason, you don't.
Keep in mind that the bar for notability for non-cryptographic hashes on Wikipedia is not especially high. I was unable to get Fowler Noll Vo hash deleted even though it only references Noll's own site. The other comparable hash, Jenkins hash function, likewise references only Jenkins, although one of these references is in a published (industry but non-academic magazine) article by him. This leaves me to wonder why you hold this particular algorithm to a higher standard than the rest. Did MurmurHash do something bad to you once?
Also, please WP:AGF and avoid impugning the motivations of editors. There is absolutely nothing in the article that constitutes advertising, and it's just an algorithm that was placed in the public domain for all to use freely, so there is no "product" to advertise. Instead, I would appreciate it if you could address the conflict between your claim that there are no reliable sources and the presence of these demonstrably reliable sources. Phil Spectre (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them are one word mentions. They don't in my opinion confer any significant notability. The Hammer mentions it once, and then never mentions it again in the Conclusions. The NIST mentions it once at the bottom of the page. These are not substantive references.- Wolfkeeper 01:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See below for refutation of the "one word mentions" notion. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think you're comparing like with like, if you look at the AFD discussion for Fowler Noll Vo Hash, you'll see that they found over 105 hits in google scholar alone. Last time we couldn't find any hits in google scholar on murmurHash, and you haven't quoted any. Indeed, it's the fact that you've recreated this article without fixing the problems with it that is so frustrating, and prompted the AFD.- Wolfkeeper 01:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If hits were all that mattered, then the 584 site:.edu hits that User:Gruntler found for MurmurHash are on par with the 1580 for FNV. There were apparently 105 Scholar "hits" for FNV, but not a single one made its way into Fowler Noll Vo hash, so why should we care? For that matter, you don't need 105 hits to be notable or even 2; a single WP:RS of WP:N suffices. Hammer, NIST and Chouza are all good enough for that. There are also good industry and open-source citations, which you've arbitrarily chosen to ignore. Please don't poison the well or stack the deck. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen an article with this little in the way of reliable sources, and I've seen articles with much more than this fail multiple AFDs.- Wolfkeeper 01:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying you never saw Fowler Noll Vo hash, which has no references except to Noll's site? I'm sorry, but what you're saying just doesn't fit the evidence. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that after MurmurHash got AFDd you AFDd at least two other hash function articles, but both were convincingly kept. Whether an article is kept or not is often more about whether AFD participants can establish that the encyclopedic topic is viable, and Fowler Noll Vo Hash convinced in AFD based on google scholar and other criteria. Last time with MurmurHash the answer was no. I'm still not convinced on this; it still seems very, very thin indeed. There are only a tiny number of reliable sources, and this is not terribly substantive.- Wolfkeeper 02:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm getting the impression that you're speaking hastily without checking your sources. In specific, what you're claiming is demonstrably false.
I did launch an AfD on the FNV article, and I still believe that, as it was then, it did not deserve to be on Wikipedia. The solution was to trim the article down so that it wasn't too big for its sources. I did the same for Jenkins, removing references to a long-dead website, but I never initiated an AfD against it. In fact, the one on FNV was my first and only, and I now regret it because I was clearly too eager to delete instead of repair. I made the mistake of basing my argument for deletion on yours, and learned that it was flawed. That's why, after some reluctance, I worked to restore MurmurHash.
As for your conclusion about the sources, it is just as hasty. I suggest that you read below about academic publications that provide clearly reliable sources for notability before you jump to repeating your conclusion. I would then encourage you to be specific about what you find lacking, instead of simply stating that you're unimpressed. Such statements speak of your own unspecified personal criteria, not anything relevant to Wikipedia, so they are not particularly persuasive in the context of a !VOTE. 15:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this turns out not to be the case. As before, Google Scholar search returned academic articles by Hammer and by Chouza et al., which discuss their reasons for using MurmurHash in the course of achieving their primary goal and reference it properly in their end notes. Contrary to what Wolfkeeper has claimed, these were not all one-word mentions. For example, http://laboratorios.fi.uba.ar/lsi/chouza-tesisingenieriainformatica.pdf compares MurmurHash to FNV-1a and SuperfastHash a half dozen times, evaluating them on the basis of key size, speed and collisions. This is precisely the sort of analysis in an academic setting that establishes notability. Interestingly, the article goes on to explain that they chose to use MurmurHash because it was a better hash than the other two, which is itself notable. I do realize that you might not speak Spanish, but anyone can get a decent translation through Google Language Tools, so can only can only conclude that you just didn't read this article, which means that your !VOTE here should be understood in that context. The goal here is not merely to give your opinion, but to give an informed opinion. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very true; there are more sources. I don't see http://laboratorios.fi.uba.ar/lsi/chouza-tesisingenieriainformatica.pdf in the article, which is why I did not evaluate it. This source appears to indicate notability; however, the depth of coverage is not enough for it to establish notability by itself — more sources are needed.

    Many of the sources in the article are unreliable: this is a blog and this is passing mention in a code website. Because my old rationale no longer applies and because I am undecided about the notability of MurmurHash, I will abstain for now. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for evaluating this issue more carefully, whatever you conclude. To be clear, the links you mentioned were not provided primarily to establish notability, but to add value to the article. It is typical for articles on algorithms to link to available sample implementations, and unlike the now-deleted version, this one does not contain source code or even pseudocode (whereas some articles do one or both).
Having said this, the fact that the algorithm is included in a number of significant open-source projects is an indirect indication of its notability, regardless of how little fanfare there is about it. If we put aside WP:RS for a moment and just Google for insight, it's easy to find discussions about MurmurHash within these projects' forums, showing that it's genuinely being used, evaluated and discussed. For example, this blog entry evaluates MurmurHash for use in Bloom filters under Hadoop and directly endorses it. And, yes, I know it's a blog and not WP:RS; I'm just offering insight. Phil Spectre (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that you were spot on about the Chouza reference not being in the article, so I've changed that. Rather than taking this RFD as something personal, I'm using it as an opportunity to get input to improve the article. As a result, I've also added an academic reference that confirms how well the hash works in a Bloom filter, which is another indication of notability. Phil Spectre (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this PDF is all bitmaps, not text. I don't have the tools handy to OCR it, but using the end notes as an index made it easy enough to find that page 14 contains the mention. The exact text is: "The choice of the hashing algorithm to be employed within D2STM has been based on experimental comparison of a spectrum of different hash functions trading off complexity, speed and collision resistance. The one that exhibited the best performance while matching the analytically forecast false positive probability turned out to be MurmurHash2 [5], a simple, multiplicative hash function whose excellent performances have been also confirmed by some recent benchmarking results [24]." This is simultaneously a "one word mention" and a WP:RS of WP:N. Phil Spectre (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading up on WP:RS. What I've learned is that whether something is a reliable source depends on what we're using it as a reliable source for. For example, we link to Appleby's self-published official MurmurHash site, which includes the source code but also offers benchmark results that suggest the algorithm is substantially faster than alternatives. It would be entirely inappropriate for us to reference these self-published claims in the context of asserting them as true, and in fact, we do not. Rather, just as it's ok to quote someone's blog purely as a source for what that person has said, it's fine to point to Appleby's site for the exact code that he released into the public domain. In a similar way, we use Landman's blog to point to the C# port that he published, not to repeat his opinion about MurmurHash. After all, who is Davy Landman anyhow and why should we care? (Sorry, Davy, nothing personal.)
So, in this case, even though blogs are not generally WP:RS, we still reference two of them, one of which is a primary source that's got possible WP:COI. However, because of how we use them, these two are not only valuable additions to the article, but are WP:RS. In contrast, when we do speak of possibly controversial claims, such as the speed of the hash, we carefully rely on a combination of published academic papers and respected open-source projects. I suppose that, if we really wanted to, we could quote Appleby's speed claims as "according to the author", but we don't need to so we don't. Phil Spectre (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also been reading WP:N, particularly WP:GNG, and what I found supports the notability of this article. I'm not going to copy and paste the whole thing here, but I will quote parts and refer to the rest in a way that assumes you have it up in another window. The basic requirement is that it must receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I think the issue here is that these terms are being misunderstood in a way that inflates the difficulty of qualifying. Fortunately, the page does go into more detail, which I believe settles the issue.
Significant coverage: The source has to cover the topic "directly in detail", adding that this means "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". I would suggest that Chouza is a particularly fine example of this, as is Coceiro.
Reliable: Clearly includes published academic papers.
Sources: Requires that they be secondary. All of the sources used in MurmurHash to establish notability are secondary.
Independent of subject: Requires that secondary sources not be mouthpieces for the primary source. With papers from multiple countries, I don't believe this is an issue.
Presumed: States that this is sufficient to support a presumption of notability, but it's still possible that we may decide for other reasons that it's not notable. Again, this doesn't seem to be an issue here. Rather, we seem to agree that, so long as WP:GNG was satisfied, this topic would be notable.
Having broken down the requirements and analyzed them piecemeal, I'm convinced that they are being met. Phil Spectre (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Phil Spectre (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Phil Spectre (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a related question: What would it take to convince you to change from Weak Keep to Strong Keep? What's missing? Phil Spectre (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has very poor notability, just 3 hits in google scholar, and none in google books. And two of those are one word or one sentence mentions. The other one liked it, it benchmarked well against just two other contenders in his application. I think it takes more than that; I don't think it's in the top 3.5 million topics (which is what the Wikipedia looks like it will reach eventually), not by a long way.- Wolfkeeper 15:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it appears that you may well lack the ability to correctly use Google Scholar, as your numbers are simply wrong. If you look at MurmurHash, you'll see it lists 4 academic publications, all found through Google Scholar. That's not all of them, either, but I made an effort to avoid duplicates from the same sources, based on advice from User:Jclemens. Likewise, I've already corrected your claim about "one sentence mentions", showing it to be both false and irrelevant, and addressed WP:GNG on a point-by-point basis. I don't think any of your objections thus far have survived inquiry. Phil Spectre (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest we don't know who Phil Spectre is; the account was created shortly after MurmurHash was deleted. He seems uncommonly keen on this particular hash function; and has, since he created the account, mostly tried to get other competing hash function's articles deleted.- Wolfkeeper 15:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, we don't know who you are, but we do know who I am. While I put my name and personal credibility on the line with each edit I make, I would very much appreciate it if you kept the focus of this discussion where it belongs, on WP:N not User:Phil Spectre. The only one I know of with any WP:COI is User:Aappleby, who has been entirely up front regarding his identity and role. I'm sorry I have to ask this, but is there something that you'd like to share with us at this time about your own identity? Phil Spectre (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on 25,000+ edits I don't think I have anything to prove. You suddenly appeared, two days after the previous article was deleted, and it turns out that that article was created by a known sock puppet of a banned user, and we had that sock puppet commenting in the deletion discussion as well, and arguing against it.- Wolfkeeper 18:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know or care who else supported or opposed this article. What I do know is that you are attacking me instead of the article. I will let that speak for itself. Phil Spectre (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A COI is not a valid reason for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what's sufficient notability? We have 4 hits in google scholar, 3 of which are basically 1 word mentions. Even the most significant google scholar hit isn't exactly the New York Times, does anything reference that? I'm still not getting warm fuzzies about it's notability here.- Wolfkeeper 04:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfkeeper, these numbers are still wrong. Whatever your opinion might be, it would be more relevant to us if you got the facts straight. Phil Spectre (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 hits in Google scholar The count of 5 at the top appears to be incorrect. I actually downloaded and read all 4 of these, and only one actually did more than a one word mention.- Wolfkeeper 02:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have purposely not provided an opinion on notability, because I don't have one yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As required by the AfD process, I would like to reveal any and all potential conflicts of interest. In case it is not readily apparent, I should explicitly disclose that I worked with the two administrators who have deleted previous versions of this article to recreate it in a form that I believe merits inclusion in the project. As such, I cannot claim to be completely objective. Having said that, I gain no benefit, monetary or otherwise, from any increased exposure that MurmurHash may receive as a result of this article. I have not written about MurmurHash in any other forum, nor have I used it professionally, although I did spend an hour confirming the performance claims to my satisfaction. I should also remind you that I am not the original author of the article or of the algorithm, and I have been fully cleared of the sock puppetry charges that alleged the contrary. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of male performers in gay porn films. MuZemike 00:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Capucci[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO criteria. The only reliable source I've come across is a brief mention in this Daily News article. (then again, the Daily News article is a gossip page, so I don't know if it's reliable for a biography of a living person) APK because, he says, it's true 22:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Merge per Benjiboi. There are sufficient sources he found to support an entry in the list, especially the GayVN nomination and Queer Porn Nation. — Becksguy (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Ru[edit]

Lil Ru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think the claim is that he pressed the CDs for his self-published CDs but that the current one is on Def Jam. This seems to check out on Allmusic [50]. He also had singles on Capitol in 2007 [51]. No chart positions are listed though. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to weak keep. The album chart position just puts him over the threshold. If the singles can be referenced as charting too then that would be even better. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Coleman[edit]

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

Non-notable college athlete; fails WP:notability (people) Pdcook (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Solonoski[edit]

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

Recreation of previously deleted bio page. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Solonoski for the discussion that led to the previous deletion. Solonoski still does not meet the general criteria for notability in WP:ATHLETE, as he has still not qualified to compete "at the highest level" of his sport even in his own country (the senior division of the US Figure Skating Championships). Also see WP:WPFIGURE/N for specific discussion of notability for figure skaters. Solonoski did medal at the national Collegiate championship and was selected to compete at a minor international event, but per the US Figure Skating policies such collegiate competitors are not considered part of Team USA or members of a team envelope. I enjoy watching Solonoski's skating and give him credit for continuing to compete while attending college.... but his competitive accomplishments to date are not such that he has established any long-term notability in the sport. Dr.frog (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solonoski will be competeing at the highest level of his sport this January at the 2010 Championships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.217.177.165 (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotive (software)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Knight (company)[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:ORG; I can find nothing on google, google books or google news, although I appreciate that with the name a lot of false positives are likely to mask true results. Ironholds (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willem and Louis van der Merwe[edit]

Willem and Louis van der Merwe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. This is an article about two amateur singers. No clear evidence of notability - reaching the finals of a single competition (and failing) isn't enough. Fails WP:N andy (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Like I said it can be argued that it isn't major; I can be swayed on this, let's see how others interpret SA's Got Talent. J04n(talk page) 00:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Collins[edit]

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

Onetime college football player who never made the pros and fails WP:ATHLETE. Only other potential claim to notability is murder conviction in apparent drug-related incident, but that fails under NOTNEWS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found it hard to believe it would even be mentioned that he played for the Alouettes unless he played a down for them--but just in case, I found a source saying he did play for them here. If my French is accurate, it says, "He played one game for the Alouettes in 2003." Blueboy96 21:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now switching to keep per source brought forward by Blueboy.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No support for deletion apart from nominator. Davewild (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votruba[edit]

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

A list of mostly Red links. Tresiden (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: per new "lede" - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Lin[edit]

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

According to the linked website, the subject's claim to notability is that he's the unofficial 53rd-fastest solver of the cube. Pseudomonas(talk) 14:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Grimaud[edit]

I don't see why Tony Grimaud's article had been marked for deletion. I am sure others would want to add and improve on the page. Why be so quick to judge and condemn? So come on guys, get his page back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.80.98 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn; kept. (X! · talk)  · @324  ·  06:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Light Finding Operation[edit]

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

This list of fictional mecha from the universe of the Japanese anime and manga Eureka Seven is not notable in its own right. No reliable, third-party sources describing these mecha exist. If this article is deleted, I suggest content be moved to the Eureka Seven Wikia, though it is largely inactive. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 06:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nomination withdrawn. I withdraw with the hope that this article is improved with the sources mentioned so that the article is made notable and rewritten in a non-inuniverse manner. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 06:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Detroit Tigers all-time roster. If deemed necessary due to size or other reasons, the list can be split out again. NW (Talk) 01:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Detroit Tigers shortstops[edit]

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

Also, no context, no reason given for this list to exist as they're all listed at Detroit Tigers all-time roster. Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they're all listed by position elsewhere, agree this is needless. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Detroit Tigers all-time roster doesn't specify whether a particular infielder actually played shortstop. Personally, I am neutral on this AfD - I think an appropriate and useful list could be made on this topic, but I don't think the current list (simply an alphabetical listing) cuts it. Rlendog (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Detroit Tigers all-time roster. If deemed necessary due to size or other reasons, the list can be split out again. NW (Talk) 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Detroit Tigers second basemen[edit]

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

No context, no reason it's notable for them to be second baseman on the Tigers such that they need a separate list from Detroit Tigers all-time roster. Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they're all listed by position elsewhere, agree this is needless. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Detroit Tigers all-time roster doesn't specify whether a particular infielder actually played shortstop. Personally, I am neutral on this AfD - I think an appropriate and useful list could be made on this topic, but I don't think the current list (simply an alphabetical listing) cuts it. Rlendog (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Boudreau[edit]

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

The page has not been updated or modified for some time. Although the page is biographical and from a neutral point of view, the biography seems self promotional. It does not link to references, provide sources, or demonstrate claims to notability as established in Wikipedia:BIO#Any_biography. BordenRhodes (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to will.i.am. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jackass Song[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:NSONGS, lack of WP:RS and no WP:N. Dale 01:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, as the article did not make any credible claims to significance for the company. If anyone wants to use the content to try and build a better article from, please feel free to ask at my talkpage or at WP:REFUND.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InZania[edit]

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


continued feedback? changes made, no idea how to find revenue & profits of a privately owned company —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paska12 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


No reliable sources (the page on Mixx.com which was added after a request for references does not appear to fulfill the requirements of WP:RS), unencyclopedic advertising-like text ("has sought to bring innovation, quality and customer satisfaction to the mobile space by creating applications that marry the computing power of a desktop with the convenience of a mobile device"), no evidence for encyclopedic notability, several fundamental "hard facts" about the company are missing (number of employees, revenue & profits, ownership). HaeB (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created about a company that I liked based on information provided from their website. I am a first time Wikipedia user but I tried to follow the wikipedia guidelines and alter the article based on comments from the Wikipedia group as they were listed on the article. I would love more feedback so I can learn to be a better wikipedia user but I feel that I have met the guidelines for this article and enjoyed trying to create my first article (and learned a lot!)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paska12 (talk • contribs)

Hi Paska12, would you mind answering the question on your talk page?
You are welcome to improve the article in the coming days, but in its present state it does not satisfy several important Wikipedia policies.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Victors (book)[edit]

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

Source for the book title is WikiAnswers; no reliable source can be found to confirm this. Also, the book is unpublished and should not have an article yet per WP:BK#Not yet published books. Only other sources provided are fansites/forums. Andrea (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Kevin (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagbilaran Accelerated Christian School[edit]

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

No sources. Zhang He (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More