< 30 September	2 October >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obvious advertising and unreferenced article with no claim of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EME Creative[edit]

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

the organisation is non-notable and I cannot find any secondary sources asserting its notability, there is also a conflict of interest issue Declan Clam (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 - this article about an organisation does not assert the notability of the subject. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete clear WP:ADVERTISING, single use account, blantent spam, why should it be kept again? --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 23:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danze Fantasy Productions[edit]

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

I removed the speedy from this entertainment company because notability asserted is asserted. The company has performed shows on MSC Cruises and Star Cruises.

However, I have been unable to find coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources to verify this. A Google News Archive search returns a passing mention, while a Google Books search returns no results. This company fails WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage in multiple independent sources only creates a presumption of notability; I'd argue that even if sources were found, this production company would still be non-notable (or at least no more notable than any other production company). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find this article notable. --Shorty23sin (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you find this topic notable? Your argument currently falls afoul of WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please link to the sources that establish notability. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - beyond passing mentions, I cannot find any coverage about this company. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Cannot determine notability, although the name rings a bell (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I saw this company in Seoul, and they should definitely be on wikipedia. --Bendfp (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn - nomination withdrawn, only vote is to keep - WP:NAC. Giant Snowman 09:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Stewart (footballer)[edit]

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

Only source is a blog that doesn't meet our WP:RS policy. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unless anyone's asserting that he is not, in fact, a professional footballer, then he meets WP:ATHLETE ("People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and the article should be kept. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - I'm just going to remove the unreliable source from the articles that contain it. People can add in reliable sources later.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn. –xeno^talk 20:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rock (musician)[edit]

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

I can't find any indication that this guy meets the GNG, despite having a more famous nephew and having introduced several other dudes into music. pablo_hablo. 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - mainly due to this, and a vague suspicion that there may be more. I think that the paucity of sources may be due to recentism and intend to improve this article. Local notability is still notability. Apologies for wasting anyone's time. pablo_hablo. 19:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to look at the spanish version of the article to realize his notability. This is the second times this happens to articles i create about musicians, Sexual Democracia was also questioned. Reasons of notability:

He particiapted in the Chilean TV show "Jappening con ja"
He participated in the Viña del Mar International Festival in 1990.
He is perhaps the most famous rock-n-roll muscian in Chile
He in the Chilean TV show "Rojo Vip"
He is on the Chilean ock enclopedy.[1] Dentren | ^Talk 22:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as "el rey del rock and roll"[2]. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. the strong consensus here is to delete. Whether or not this is N or V does not come into play, and being created by a blocked user does not bode well for any article and would lead to increased scrutiny and skepticism Valley2city^‽ 21:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhapa Sikh[edit]

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

The Debate on "Bhappa" has not been sorted? Sikh-History 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhappe -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the nominator I haven't seen anything new in this article to show notability for the term. The majority of the article that is referenced, is unrelated to the title. The first two refs are to dictionaries, not a sign of notability. Unless some credible sources are found (unlikely since this page was userfied and worked on for over a month before getting back here), this should be a delete. I'd say it qualifies for G4 given that the only change in articles is addition of unrelated content. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Hoax.~~ There is indeed a slang word "Bhapa". And? wp:NOT a dictionary. Not notable.- Sinneed 04:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC) edit - Sinneed 04:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL vio? Does this qualify for G12? The page has been copied from User:ISKapoor/Bhapa (indef blocked user's space) which was a userfied version of the earlier Bhappe deleted by the earlier AfD. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... if we do delete Bhappa, I'd suggest deleting that userfy'd Bhapa one as well, as it belongs to a blocked user so there's about no chance of anyone working on it to improve it. Tabercil (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NoT-Notable and insultive word. --170.35.208.21 (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and we have had this discussion before about its deletion and it was deleted.--Sikh-History 11:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - user:Sikh-history is the nominator. Procedural question: Should SH's item "non-notable and..." be a "comment" instead of "delete"?

The Bhapa Sikh article needs to be DELETED NOW! it is a deragotory term found within the Punjabi community, and it the page seems to be created by a Pakistani Punjabi, who has prejudice against Indian Punjabis. PLEASE DELETE THIS PAGE NOW! Thanks --KhatriNYC (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We do not wp:censor in WP. Shouting in discussions makes it harder to reach wp:consensus, on which WP runs. The fact that this is a derogatory term does not affect whether or not it should be included.- Sinneed 14:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - it's a stupid page made by a person who does not like Khatri people. Please delete the Bhapa Sikh page. Thanks. --KhatriNYC (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The critical thing that we are supposed to be thinking about here, is if the topic is both notable and verifiable. I don't think that saying that the term is a racial slur is grounds for deleting the article. I realize that this is WP:OTHERCRAP but there are articles on Nigger and Nigga which are also offensive racial terms. WP:ILIKEIT isn't generally a good reason to keep an article in and of itself, but I found the article interesting, and I learned from it, because it is good to know offensive terms, if only to avoid using them to not offend someone. I noticed that the article was deleted before, but read an interesting point made in the deletion discussion. This argument was that the very number of people participating in the discussion pretty much proved that the topic was notable and verifiable. If this was some sort of term that no one had ever heard of there would not be an army of partisans interested in deleting it. I have noticed the unfortunate tendency within the India project section of Wikipedia to try and white wash and sanitize articles about ethnic tensions in India. I think this is unfortunate because it threatens WP:NPOV.

As far as User:SpacemanSpiff reasoning about the relation between this deletion debate and WP:BLOCK, I really don't see how that applies here. Of course there may be an element within the community who is using the blocking policy to push a point of view that sanitizes racial tensions, by unfairly blocking users who are not following their agenda. If that is the case with this particular article, blocking policy become irrelevant clearly by WP:IAR. Even if some ingenious Wiki-lawyer could come up with some sort of blocking policy justification for deleting this article, all that proves is that the blocking policy itself has become to long and complicated so my approach would be to say WP:TLDR to the blocking policy. So here it is in a nutshell. Blocking policy can't be used to justify pushing a non-neutral point of view. What does a particular editor being blocked or not have to do with if a topic is notable WP:N and verifiable WP:V? Nothing what so ever it would seem to me. The whole line of reasoning is an ad hominum attack. This would be prohibited by WP:NPA, unless it is admitted that people are using WP:BLOCK to skirt around the prohibitions on using this type of logic in a debate.
As far as Wikipedia not being a dictionary, if all that were available about the topic were a dictionary definition, this might be valid, but ethnic slurs seem to normally have an involved history, and have a lot of material about them that involves a treatment more involved than simply giving a dictionary definition. The present article is more than a dictionary definition, and while it also needs a lot of work to fix a neutral point of view, still clearly there is more material than a simple dictionary definition.

Getting back to the issue of if this term is notable and verifiable, I did a quick google search and saw that there were close to 5,000 hits. I realize that WP:GHITS alone does not always prove a topic is worthy of inclusion this does at least show that the term is fairly well known. I found a fairly interesting and what seemed to be a well read article here. But there should be plenty of other good references that could be turned up rather quickly with a little work. In conclusion this term is clearly both notable and there should be plenty of verifiable information about it that could be turned up with a little work, and the present poor or even offensive state of the article is not really relevant here.130.86.76.103 (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above edit by 130.86.76.103 was modified 19:09, 8 October 2009 by 130.86.73.121. Guessing this is a dynamic IP but... not the same IP.- Sinneed 21:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- 130.86.76.103, the wall-of-text method of doing anything at all in WP works poorly. It simply means it is very unlikely that one's comment will be read. I would love to read a 1 or 2 sentence summary of that, as I would love to hear your point.- Sinneed 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The keep arguments have failed to effectively refute the policy/guideline based delete arguments. Kevin (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Money[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Although there are enough claims of importance (hit songs) that I declined the speedy deletion request, I'm not finding enough sources to show this artist meets WP:BIO. No entry at allmusic, gsearch not turning up independent reliable sources. The sources in the article are a listing of where he'll appear locally, a pdf that doesn't mention him, and an article in his school newspaper. Prod contested by article's creator without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a local club performer with little to no notability. Eeekster (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the relevant criteria are WP:N and WP:MUSICBIO and I can't find anything in the article to suggest that he meets any criterion under either of those policies. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bee Money is notable per the basic notability criteria WP:BIO. He has be the subject of secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent from the subject. This criteria is met by the school newspaper. Bee Money is not a student at Brigham Young University and never has been. The newspaper is also a reputable paper. Further, Bee Money is also notable under the additional criteria for entertainers. He has a large fan base in the Utah Valley region and his following could be considered a "cult" following. Also his fight for clean music is a unique and innovative contribution to the rap industry. Further Emerson meets the criteria WP:MUSICBIO. He has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city. Ericf9 (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)— Ericf9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Ericf9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - I think you're reading WP:BIO too narrowly. It also requires the subject of the article to be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Further, regarding sources, I don't know how a student newspaper could possibly be claimed as a reliable source, especially since it's not linked, it's non-notable, and no information is included on how one might go about obtaining a copy. Lastly, the article doesn't assert him to be "the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" - whether you're talking about rap generally, clean rap, or the entirely non-notable rap scene of Provo, UT - and neither do any of the sources. (And his "hits" don't meet any of the criteria under WP:MUSICBIO.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the analysis by DustFormsWords. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bee Money Article appears to be notable according to criteria WP:BIO. Bee Money has a immense cult following and is an advocate for clean rap music. - User:Bigbusinessonly — Bigbusinessonly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - Bee Money Article does not appear to be notable according to criteria WP:BIO. Bee Money may have an immense cult following, but we've seen no proof of this, and being an advocate for clean rap music does not infer notability - see WP:N#CLEANRAPMUSICADVOCATESAREEXEMPT. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article appears to be notable seeing as he is the only representative of the Provo, UT rap scene which contains two major Universities, Brigham Young University and Utah Valley University. Thats over 55,000 students in one valley. Who are the biggest rap fans? kids age 20-30 aka college kids and so if theres only one rapper, everyone knows him and they'll want to look him up and figure out his story and where would they turn? wikipedia unless you fetchers try to delete it. dont hate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinodude81 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC) — Dinodude81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Bee Money is notable to say the least. He is an icon in the Utah Valley. Deletion of this article would be a loss for the wikipedia community (User talk:Thisisamericamyfriends — Thisisamericamyfriends (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - coverage in a student newspaper does not establish notability. Whpq (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - welcome to Wikipedia, all you new editors involved here. Here's what you do if you want to prove this person is notable: find reliable sources saying he's notable. The sources provided so far are not cutting it, and you guys saying he's awesome and an advocate for stuff doesn't help at all. (Oh, and calling people names and saynig "don't hate!" doesn't help much either.) At present, the subject fails WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that all of you "experienced" wikipedia editors advocating the deletion of this article, claim that "the Bee Money Article does not appear to be notable according to criteria WP:BIO" Here's what you can do. Research what wikipedia state's as meeting criteria for musicians and ensembles. #7 states that an artist "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." Verifiability under "your" (wikipedia's) terms is whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. The common theme in the "notability guidelines" is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability, which all of our sources do. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. School and university newspapers would therefore be classified as "published peer recognition." So don't debate that university newspapers are not "reliable." In conclusion, don't refute that Bee Money is not notable. According to WP:BIO #7, he is. That is sufficient. Read our sources THOROUGHLY. Do not say that our sources do not establish notability. According to your terms, "published peer recognition and the other factors (which are met) is considered substantial coverage as a reliable sources. Red20five (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC) — red20five (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Before lecturing about reading WP:BAND, you might want to read that section again. It starts out "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" (emphasis mine). May be notable is not the same as is automatically notable. This just gives some guidelines on the types of articles that should be in Wikipedia. The other notability requirements still need to be met. The issue seems to be the sources. If you read WP:N, you'll see that ""Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." A short newspaper article isn't enough on its own; a listing of appearances doesn't provide any depth of coverage, and sources that don't even mention him surely can't provide evidence of notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article appears notable. imonaboatlikeaboss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC). — Imonaboatlikeaboss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - (still sticking by my Delete vote above) - Just wanted to point out that Provo, UT is a city of only 117,000 people and being a prominent figure on its rap scene is presumably not much harder than performing a couple of live gigs. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well DustFormsWords you seem to have done your research, unfortunately you failed to take into account that "Provo is also the principal city in the Provo-Orem metropolitan area, with an estimated population of 540,820 residents.[4] It is the second largest metro area in the state behind Salt Lake City." That's straight from the Provo Wikipedia page, which means it is very notable. Probably also the same page you looked at to get your last statistic but then failed to keep reading in order to find out that Provo is the principal city of the second largest metro area in Utah not just an isolated city of only 117,592 people. Plus that is a completely ridiculous statement to say that all it takes to become a prominent rap figure in Provo is a couple of live gigs! You come to Provo and rap, or for that matter perform live whatever you want, and I guarantee no one knows your name and you don't get half as many fans as Bee Money! ONE OUT!-Billnted (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC) — Billnted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - but on what basis are you basing your opinion of keep on? -- Whpq (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Serious? - Billnted (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn Govvy (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Neill[edit]

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

Sourced to a blog that doesn't meet our WP:RS policy. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now also sourced by this, which does meet RS policy, and shows notability. Giant Snowman 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, does that consitute a "reliable, third-party, published source"?--Vintagekits (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I'm not trying to prove this article passes GNG, which it doesn't yet. I'm using the source to prove sporting notability, which I am satisfied that I have done. Giant Snowman 21:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - I'm just going to remove the unreliable source from the articles that contain it. People can add in reliable sources later.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia with no reliable sources and which haven't been deleted;
- there is no doubt that the player in question is notable, having been named as an Ulster Footballer of the Year (this is referenced);
- there is no question of anything libellous being included in the article;
- there is no reason to query the accuracy of any of the information provided;
- "reliable sources" have been provided for much of the information in the article - so, even, if some material is based on an "unreliable source", there is still merit in retaining the article, even if some material is to be removed;
- finally, a request for additional sources is included at the top of the article, so it seems premature to be deleting it.Mooretwin (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn Govvy (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Hughes (footballer)[edit]

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

Sourced to a blog that doesn't meet our WP:RS policy. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this source shows he was topscorer in the Irish league in three different seasons for Glentoran, enough for me. Giant Snowman 21:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would being Glentoran's third-highest ever goalscorer and being chosen for the Northern Irish FA tour of America and Canada in 1953 (as well as being the top scorer in the Northern Irish league in three seasons, as pointed out above) be enough to show notability? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would say so! Giant Snowman 21:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - I'm just going to remove the unreliable source from the articles that contain it. People can add in reliable sources later.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia with no reliable sources and which haven't been deleted;
- there is no doubt that the player in question is notable, having been named as an Ulster Footballer of the Year (this is referenced);
- there is no question of anything libellous being included in the article;
- there is no reason to query the accuracy of any of the information provided;
- "reliable sources" have been provided for much of the information in the article - so, even, if some material is based on an "unreliable source", there is still merit in retaining the article, even if some material is to be removed;
- finally, a request for additional sources is included at the top of the article, so it seems premature to be deleting it. Mooretwin (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn Govvy (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Dunlop (footballer)[edit]

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

Sourced to a blog that doesn't meet our WP:RS policy. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although Mooretwin is using a blog as a reference, Dunlop is an international footballer.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vintagekits, international footballer and therefore notable. Giant Snowman 21:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He played four times for Northern Ireland (and was chosen for the 1982 World Cup squad), therefore making him notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - I'm just going to remove the unreliable source from the articles that contain it. People can add in reliable sources later.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE, full international representative--ClubOranje^T 05:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn Govvy (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Treverrow[edit]

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

Sourced to a blog that doesn't meet our WP:RS policy. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - won many honours with Ballymena, and "was given the prestigious honour of being named Ulster Footballer of the Year" in 1952, as per this reliable source which I have added to the text. Giant Snowman 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thats funny because I have always seen you claim that biogs on players own websites dont consitute a RS.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a biography, it's a club history. Read the source before editing. Giant Snowman 21:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its still not a source independent of the person though - which is what you have claimed on other AfD's. --Vintagekits (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You need to move on from months-old AfDs that didn't go your way. Face it, the club's own official history is a reliable source that proves this guy is notable! Giant Snowman 21:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am just trying to find some consistancy with you guys - which was always, and seems still is still, lacking. You always said that if the article was produced by the players club then it wasnt "third party" and therefore didnt pass as a WP:RS - I'm just saying what you said!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, you were using non-third party player profiles to show that a player passed WP:GNG, which specifically asks for independent sources - and therefore they weren't good enough. I am not doing that here. Giant Snowman 21:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that it is a third party source then?--Vintagekits (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it's clearly not. I'm not using this source to try and pass GNG, I'm using it to show sporting acheivements and notability, which I am satisfied it does. Giant Snowman 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You contradict yourself in your own post. You say I'm not using this source to try and pass GNG, yet, then you say, I'm using it to show sporting acheivements and notability. Emphasis mine, to show bits which contradict each other.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was, notability through sporting success, as opposed to notability through third-party sources. Giant Snowman 21:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't even know what GiantSnowman is trying to say; you keep contradicting yourself and making absolutely no sense at all. Anyways, delete as I can't find any proof of notability whatsoever. Blogspam and one-time mentions on some obscure website doesn't count for anything. Keep - While there are other problems with the sources, I misunderstood the notability policy for athletes. So keep. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I contradict myself? ~~And RSSSF isn't "some obscure website", it's one of the most highly-rated football statistics websites available!~~ Wrong AfD, sorry! Too darn tired... Giant Snowman 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the stuff you're saying on notability. While it's not notable, it somehow is in sports...? If it's NN, it's NN; it doesn't matter what category the subject is in. This doesn't exactly show that it's a highly-rated or frequently visited site either. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many times a website is visited to show its reliablity, what a ridiculous thing to claim. The fact you have to face is that the website I have provided shows that this guy has acheived enough for his article to be deemed as notable. Giant Snowman 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not saying anything about it being reliable; you're talking about notability. Again, a one-sentence mention does not make for a proper source for any article. Nor does it say anything about his notability. I can have someone write a short mention of me and how I frequently shop this or that supermarket; still doesn't make me notable. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the act of shopping in a supermarket, which the sentence shows, isn't notable. However, the sentence above shows sporting notability, as does this independent newspaper article, which shows Treverrow was a member of the 1958 Irish Cup winning side. Giant Snowman 22:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So first off you say that the article isn't notable... and then you claim "sporting notability", which AFAIK there is no such thing on Wikipedia. Yet again, passing mentions of some person contributing to a sports victory does not make that person notable. The group as a whole may be, but not that one single player. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say the article wasn't notable? There is sporting notability, located at WP:ATHLETE, I suggest you read it. Giant Snowman 22:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unless anyone asserts that he is not actually a professional footballer, he meets WP:ATHLETE ("People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and the article should be kept. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - I'm just going to remove the unreliable source from the articles that contain it. People can add in reliable sources later.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you can't withdraw yet as there is still an unstruck 'Delete' vote from GraYoshi2x - sorry. Giant Snowman 08:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:
- there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia with no reliable sources and which haven't been deleted;
- there is no doubt that the player in question is notable, having been named as an Ulster Footballer of the Year (this is referenced);
- there is no question of anything libellous being included in the article;
- there is no reason to query the accuracy of any of the information provided;
- "reliable sources" have been provided for much of the information in the article - so, even, if some material is based on an "unreliable source", there is still merit in retaining the article, even if some material is to be removed;
- finally, a request for additional sources is included at the top of the article, so it seems premature to be deleting it.Mooretwin (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn Govvy (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clancy McDermott[edit]

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

Sourced to a blog that doesn't meet our WP:RS policy. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the blog is, in my humble opinion at least, a reliable source. As I have said on a discussion over at WP:ANI, "Just because it is a blog does not mean it isn't reliable - WP:SPS says that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", and contributors to the NIFG blog include respected and established football contibutors such as George Glass, who is a senior researcher over at IFFHS, another respected online footballing source." Anyways, regardless of that blog, I have added another reliable source to show notability. Giant Snowman 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Official blogs maybe be RS but these usually have the authors name on the article. These articles are anonymous and do not pass WP:V.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the blog then - what about the source from Coleraine's official site which shows notability? Giant Snowman 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thats funny because I have always seen you claim that biogs on players own websites dont consitute a RS.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a bog-standard current player profile that every Tom, Dick & Harry for every club gets, and this which is an in-depth retrosepctive of a player's career. Giant Snowman 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But its not an independent source is it. Dont worry I am used to your (and your cabals) double standards! Hence the reason I am retired.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be independent but it's still reliable! And if you're retired, why are you still editing?!? Giant Snowman 21:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am just trying to find some consistancy with you guys - which was always, and seems still is still, lacking. You always said that if the article was produced by the players club then it wasnt "third party" and therefore didnt pass as a WP:RS - I'm just saying what you said!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, you were using non-third party player profiles to show that a player passed WP:GNG, which specifically asks for independent sources - and therefore they weren't good enough. I am not doing that here. Giant Snowman 21:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states that it should be a "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject" - this source is from the players clubs is that "Independent of the subject"? Just checkin like!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt an official in-depth club retrosepctive of a players successful career is going to be rejected as a RS - let's see what other editors have to say, OK? Giant Snowman 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia with no reliable sources and which haven't been deleted;
- there is no doubt that the player in question is notable, having been named as an Ulster Footballer of the Year (this is referenced);
- there is no question of anything libellous being included in the article;
- there is no reason to query the accuracy of any of the information provided;
- "reliable sources" have been provided for much of the information in the article - so, even, if some material is based on an "unreliable source", there is still merit in retaining the article, even if some material is to be removed;
- finally, a request for additional sources is included at the top of the article, so it seems premature to be deleting it. Mooretwin (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:note that this request for deletion has arisen as a result of a personal issue on the part of User:Vintagekits, who appears to have raised this at AN/I as some kind of "revenge" for an incident report which I made against him here. Mooretwin (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The personal comments above should be struck out. Please keep your comments to the content, and not about what you believe the motivations of other editors to be. --HighKing (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one that made this afd, not VK. Or are you suggesting I'm a sockpuppet of him? If that is the case, then it is a personal attack, as it is without evidence, and should be removed.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making no such accusation. The point being made is that this nomination arose as a result of a "revenge" complaint made by VK at AN/I. Also note that he weighed in here after you nominated the article. Mooretwin (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't, then please retract the assertion that the motivation for this request is personal. I am in no way involved with either you or VK, it is not personal.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez. Give us a chance. You just prevented me from doing so by causing an edit conflict! Mooretwin (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moretowin, the rationale behind the AfD has nothing to do with you personally, it is to do with the accuracy of information contained within the article as it stood when the nomination was made, which is a perfectly valid reason for AfD. I would second Daedalus' suggestion to strike through your comments, as an AfD debate isn't the place for this. Regards, Giant Snowman 10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I already changed the comments. Second, I'm not saying that the rationale is anything to do with me personally: I'm saying that the issue arose out of a personal issue in respect of User:Vintagekits. Mooretwin (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the nominator isn't Vintagekits, it is Daedalus969...Giant Snowman 10:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And? As I've said (twice now, I think) - I've changed my comments. I do not say that Vintagekits is the nominator. Mooretwin (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"note that this request for deletion has arisen as a result of a personal issue on the part of User:Vintagekits" - your personal run-ins with Vintagekits have nothing to do with this AfD, and yet that comment remains for some reason! Giant Snowman 10:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to AN/I you'll see where this AfD originated. What I have said is true. Mooretwin (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article currently has a reference from Northern Ireland Soccer Yearbook 2009-2010 which appears to denote notability to the subject. Not having a copy, can MT paste the relevent comments here? Personally, if Clancy is notable, I see no reason why this article should be deleted. --HighKing (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, there has been a very recent discussion here which proves the reliability of the NIFG source which Daedalus969 previously believed to be a unreliable source; even Daedalus969 has said he now views it as reliable. Giant Snowman 11:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a source from the Coleraine F.C. web site, which is reliable. Mooretwin (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus now is that NIFG is also reliable. Giant Snowman 11:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In light of the info given about reliable sources. --HighKing (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - per findings at WP:RSN.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creston Davis[edit]

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

Borderline notability; cleanup and better references may suffice to demonstrate notability though LotLE×talk 20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He seems to have an active academic career but I see no evidence that his research has yet had the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1, I don't think his editing rises to the level of WP:PROF #8, and he clearly doesn't pass any of the other WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. David Eppstein’s analysis is right on target, but I should say that the subject is a co-author/editor of two books by prestigious university publishers, one by Duke University Press and the other by MIT Press. The most widely held is in 268 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat, and the second in 153 libraries. The article was create a bit early, and the subject is almost sure to pass WP:PROF notability criteria in the near future. I wonder if we could do anything to make it clear to academic bio article creators that waiting a little bit (often 1 or 2 years would be enough) would significantly enhance the chances of certain bio articles (like this) being kept. The flip side, unfortunately, is that creating articles too early frequently leads to embarrassment for the subjects of the articles, as the comments posted in these AfD discussions are often “brutal”. I heard of at least one recent case in which an AfD discussion, like this one, was printed and used in a tenure committee meeting discussion; needless to say, against the applicant.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gah. We have far less information to go on than real tenure committees, and our decisions are made on different bases. I hope this sort of thing is very infrequent. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A wise warning above. It is also sometimes the case that articles about an academic are created by one of their students, eager to puff themselves up by proxy, and which cause embarassment. But GS cites in this case appear to be negligible so it is difficult to avoid Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. Despite being nominator, I went back and took a look for Dr. Davis in the Google Scholar link above. I'm inclined to think that his editorship on several books on "good" presses, about areas of current scholarly research, nudges this towards keep. I think Eric Yurken is right that this article might have done better to wait a year for creation, but given it's here, I'm not sure keeping it around during that year is really a bad thing. I don't know if the article was indeed created by a student or colleague, as Xxanthippe suggests is likely, but the merit need not be judged on the article's origin, in any case. LotLE×talk 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not suggest anything of the sort. I have no idea of the real personae of the editors and creators of the article. My comment was of a generic nature although my recommendation to delete is specific this this article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I should not, as full disclosure, that I only noticed the article existing (or heard of Creston Davis) when some overzealous editor linked to it from the article on prominent academic Slavoj Zizek (whom I've written about in academic publications, and whose article I tend to maintain, and who was also a teacher and collaborator of Dr. Davis). Zizek obviously has many far less prominent academics whom he has taught or worked with, and Zizek's notability is not transferable by mere collaboration. LotLE×talk 23:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scholarly output and impact seem roughly commensurate for someone early in their academic career, i.e. not yet notable according to WP:PROF #1. Note that he is an editor only of the "book reviews" section of the journal, not the journal itself, which specifically does not pass #8. No claim on any of the other PROF criteria leave us with an unambiguous delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete not yet notable. Junior coauthor and coeditor on 3 books,with only minor contributions to the edited ones. his advisor (Slavoj Zizek,) is notable, he is not, at least not now. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication in the article that Zizek is his advisor; and that seems highly unlikely, because I don't think Zizek has had an advisory position at a Western institution, particularly at Rollins. Even if he did, that doesn't denote notability . Shadowjams (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn by nominator as a mistake using Twinkle. (non-admin closure) ArcAngel (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Spongefrog[edit]

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

Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn Sorry!!! Mistake using WP:Twinkle. My fault, yes, I apologise for my carelesness , Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spongefrog being stupid! (lol)--Coldplay Expert 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because someone already put delete.--Orange soda kid 22:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD#G11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

Easy!Flow[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. User stated that he created the article in order to attract users to the product. Haakon (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:COI and WP:PROMO. Notability is questionable. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had nominated this as a speedy as the original version was really just a list of features, however I still believe it fails WP:N as references have not shown significant coverage from third-party sources. As mentioned above by Haakon there also may be a WP:COI issue. --Aka042 (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as article creator admitted to using Wikipedia for promotion. ArcAngel (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD#G11. Checking into it this is a vanity page created by the website's owner. Self-closing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

Gatehouse Gazette[edit]

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

Previously deleted due to lack of sources. Recreated twice now by the same author, Ottens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), already G4'd once, I think it still fails that test. All the references appear to be blogs or directories. I see no coverage of this publication in reliable independent secondary sources. This is unsurprising since it's a niche publication which is only on issue 8. That also explains why the article appears to be mainly written from original observation of the source material. Advertorial in tone and includes descriptions of the content of early issues, which I suppose is understandable since there are only 8 issues all told anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Following copied from the article's talk page in reference to notability.) While I very much realize that certainly not all of the references listed meet wikipedia's requirements for reliable, secondary sources, I do believe some are of note while others should not be outright dismissed, for they serve as references to quotes. Of particular interest are the links and features from Camarilla, Il ReteGiornale, [MINE] (their website seems down but the same entry can be read here), Chris Roberson and Hallows Eve Designs. Those are not all "blogs or directories". Ottens (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottens, your website is http://www.ottens.co.uk/ and the centre link on the site is to The Gatehouse - http://www.ottens.co.uk/gatehouse/gazette. Are you associated with Gatehouse Gazette? Given that you have now created the article three times and no other editor has ever added anything other than deletion tags. Guy (Help!) 07:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to International Journal of Surgery. It's clear there's no consensus to keep the article here; since there do appear to be sources available (which even one of the delete !voters noted), this content can be moved to another article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSurgery[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB JFW | T@lk 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Great idea, I like it. Unfortunately, there's only a brief "Hello" over on Pubmed, and the wiki's own About page for resources. This comes nowhere near being notable as a web page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the owners International Journal of Surgery. All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also PMID 19126604, but it's just a letter from MH Edwards. Google scholar shows a number of articles that name it, but none that seem to properly discuss it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. I wondered about the article's notability and I added a reliable source prior to tagging by JFW. Unfortunately I'm struggling to find more sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Here are a couple books that mention it http://books.google.com/books?q=Wikisurgery&btnG=Search+Books It is significant enough to be added under the International Journal of Surgery with a redirect. By the way Wikipedia only gets 42 hits over at pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and keep Redirect) I'm more inclined to keeping information on the encyclopedia (you could say that I'm a mild inclusionist). After thinking about it though, I think it is notable enough to keep but not enough so that it deserves it's own article. Thanks for telling me, Axl. Airplaneman ^talk 20:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bones As Armour[edit]

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

This page contains the only album released by Enemy Logic, whose AFD is over here. In short, nothing on these guys as per WP:MUSIC. No prejudice to recreating when they get known. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:MUSIC. Until the album charts, then it can be re-created. ArcAngel (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per below the rqmts. of WP:MUSIC. N2e (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC has occasional times where it's slightly optional: this is not one of them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Bewley[edit]

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

Non-notable biography... fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, and WP:ENTERTAINER... Adolphus79 (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reference given are: (1) A page on twilightblog.net, where anyone can submit "news" items; (2) a news release from a film studio (Summit Entertainment) in which Bewley's name appears in a cast list, and that is all; (3) an article on hollywood.com. This last is the only one which could conceivably be considered independent coverage. It is of reasonable length, but it is essentially an announcement that he is to play a fairly minor role in a film, extended with general chat. Hollywood.com covers 9,549 actors, so inclusion is not exactly exclusive. He comes nowhere near satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER's criteria. One of these criteria is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Whether this role is "significant" is questionable, but even if it is it is only one role, not roles in "multiple" films. As for the other criteria listed at WP:ENTERTAINER, he does not have a "large fan base or a significant 'cult' following", and by no stretch of the imagination has he "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". JamesBWatson (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, but with no bias against recreating in the near future should the subject meet notability criteria. --Whoosit (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blaxy Girls[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND and indeed WP:V - no reliable third-party sources exist documenting the band's alleged successes. I checked in both languages, and the only mentions were in blogs, forums and the like. The only exception was an article from this summer in a newspaper from the provincial city of Suceava, noting that they'd made a big splash at a concert there, but that's not really enough to satisfy our policies. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be issues that can be solved by some editing and some sourcing along the way.--Judo112 (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate? Like I said, we have no reliable sources from which to expand. We have a record of one performance, which does not satisfy WP:BAND, point 4 ("Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" - the Suceava performance was not, as far as we are told, part of a tour), or WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - a paragraph in a local newspaper is not "significant coverage"). - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Band criterion 9, they have reached at least the semifinals in at least two Romanian music competitions. I added this info to their page with appropriate references. They also have significant coverage in their home country here. J04n(talk page) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Elaborating on the above, here's a link to an article about them getting semi-final in that specific competition mentioned on the page. [3]. The fact that this is up for deletion is a joke, everything in the article is factual. Do your own research before marking it for deletion. Sure, the article needs sources, but deletion? Absolutely not. This extensive coverage as found on Google News also qualifies the band for WP:Band criterion 1. 72.194.105.63 (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:BAND both in terms of media coverage and placing in the Eurovision nationals. -Kieran (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they seem to have gotten significant coverage now. ArcAngel (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm having problems reading the sources, but they do appear to cover the band in enough detail for an article to be written. WP:V and WP:N appear to be met. Hobit (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Eurovision --AStanhope (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No consensus to keep, doubt whether relisting will achieve anything Kevin (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Mortensen (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the second nomination of this article for deletion. I was unaware of the first nomination 6 months ago when I came across the article. My concern for this article is that there are no reliable sources which discuss this person in significant depth, as required by WP:BLP, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. His name certainly appears in many places, such as in the liner notes of CDs by his famous parents, or for a few bit parts in some notable movies, however the compelling issue is not what he has done. Notability is specifically NOT about fame or what a person has actually accomplished. It is about what reliable sources have written about what he has done and as yet, I cannot find any reliable sources which discuss his life in any depth. Since there is an utter lack of such sources, I am again nominating this for deletion. Reviewing the prior nomination, which closed as no-consensus, none of the votes for deletion actually addressed this fundemental problem, and instead focused solely on the places where his name appeared. Jayron32 19:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm torn. Probably the best we have are the albums, so he'd possibly be a keeper under WP:MUSIC as a session musician. Thoughts? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC contains no such presumptions of notability for session musicians. None of the criteria at WP:MUSIC seems to cover this person in any way. --Jayron32 20:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not as a session, but he seems to be part of the ensemble. That would be covered. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's no "ensemble" in the sense of a cohesive, touring band. He sat in on a few recording sessions on some vanity albums made by his famous actor dad and his punk rock mother. This wasn't like the "Beatles" or anything like that. Appearing on an album with other musicians does not make one part of an "ensemble". The guy who played glockenspiel on this album is no more notable for his musicianship than the junior Mr. Mortensen is. Again, that we can come up with a list of places where his name is printed does not make him automatically worthy of an encyclopedia article... --Jayron32 02:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, good enough. Delete per this discussion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:58, 25 September 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) 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. That is, clear consensus sans the additional commentary by the confirmed socks. MuZemike 01:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PDFFiller[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The Lifehacker & USA Today reviews cited in the articles are not of sufficient depth, and the other review is by Siteguide, a blog, which is not a reliable source. Cybercobra (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous group AfD which included this article --Cybercobra (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Also, DemoMarks is a blog. Joe Chill (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion : Following this discussion as well as the archived thread, I question the relevancy of the depth of the USA today article, considering the general notability, and general purpose, rather than tech specific nature of the source. The site in question is pretty simple itself, and the question of relevancy and notability seems unrelated to depth of coverage in this instance. The current article's length and level of detail also seems proportional to the notability implied by the brief news story. Unless a better argument is made, i would oppose deletion at this time. SoloCoder 12:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)— SoloCoder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I'm sorry, but depth of coverage does matter when determining notability. From the general notability guideline:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria" (emphasis mine)

where (quoting same page):

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material

--Cybercobra (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are just repeating the contents of press releases, there is nothing here which amounts to a non-trivial reliable independent source. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. In the entire history of Pdffiller there was a single press release (Jun 2008) about free services for unemployed. All the press articles date back to 2007. So it would be impossible for the reviews to copy the content of the press release. Press release was never released to begin with.Clearweb

Oppose deletion : disclosure: i'm not a wikipedia expert, and i may be biased as I know someone who works for the company. There are 91,000 hits on google on the word 'pdffiller', it's the first site that lets people fill in non-fillable pdf forms online, there are several thousand people who use it regularly for things like filling in job applications (and the site is free for people who are unemployed), it's pretty clear that it's significant in the sense that it impacts the lives of thousands of people (you're probably much more likely to land a job in mcdonalds if the application is typed instead of handwritten). also a quick look on wikipedia shows many similar companies in this space with no discussion of deletion, and with less blog and news coverage. this seems like it started because originally an insider posted a biased article. but there's no reason to keep punishing them years later at the cost of deleting useful information. if anything the article needs to be fleshed out, and if it's saved i may come back and help with that. -joe silverman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.203.54.75 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC) — 166.203.54.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This user has already commented above as User:SoloCoder, as confirmed by checkuser. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion : Hello everyone, I run PDFfiller.com - i am a bit dyslexic :) so normally i stay away from this type of discussions.

I have try to communicate directly with CyberCobra. No response. But in this case i feel like i need to forget about my own insecurities and voice my opinion. However byos you may consider it. Few points: 1. We provide free service to unemployed people who are looking fro a job. And they find out about this service on Wikipedia. 2. As far as content of the article and the "notability" claims. PDFfiller is a very simple website. Simplicity is what our users are looking for. It will never get in depth review. There is no depth. But it is very useful to allot of people. Whether we like it or not wikipedia has become a major source of relighble information on all sorts of subjects. People use it to find anything. If you are going after tools then you may as well delete all of them not just the simple once. 3. We did not have anything to do PDFfiller entry on wikipedia. User did it because he want to let other people know that we exist. Try to keep this in mind. I hope this points make cense to you. If you want to communicate with me directly please email to vadim@pdffiller.com Clearweb — Clearweb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This user has already commented above as User:SoloCoder, as confirmed by checkuser. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The USA Today mention of it makes it notable. There are links to other third party media coverage as well. Dream Focus 14:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That mention is in relative passing along with 6 other products, it's not of sufficient depth (I grant you that story is borderline, but there's no second example of significant, reliable coverage); the same lack of depth applies to the other coverage besides the blog, which is obviously not a RS. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thre is no significant coverage about this. The first two refrences in the article are blogs and the lifehacker and USA Today are just brief mentions. I see no sifnificant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: SoloCoder, the IP address, and Clearweb are all the same person. This is confirmed by checkuser, and supported by behavioral evidence and edits by related addresses. Closing admin, please treat those votes accordingly. I've blocked SoloCoder and the IP address for one week each, and Clearweb indefinitely. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mashrouteh Park[edit]

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

Notability of this park is not established. Also WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Derek Andrews (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only 4 Ghits, and article lacks context and a lot of unneeded pictures. ArcAngel (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable. N2e (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly a nice suburban park, but not verifiably notable. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Arguments on this side were based more strongly in policy.. Tan | 39 01:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Krug[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Article displays simple WP:BOMBARDMENT in an attempt to establish notability. Of the 21 references which make the article appear really "fleshed-out," none are reliable third-party sources on the subject, Kris Krug. Eight of them are actually just links to the subject's flickr photos! Most of the rest are links to websites he's involved with (or blogs he's written) that in no way establish his objective notability. Oh, and there are a couple sites which have his photographs on them. This would be like declaring a police officer notable because he's arrested people. Don't know what else to say; just read the article, reads as a WP:PROMOTION. Plus, as a corollary, recently this reeks of promotion: Special:Contributions/SylviaBoBilvia, adding his photos all over the wiki and linking back to this article (in the main namespace, where photos aren't supposed to be attributed as such), even if they don't fit in an encyclopedic style (Matt Good picture, versus the old Matt Good picture. And then, even when it's removed from the page by other editors, it's just re-added: example on Billy Bragg. The whole situation just reeks of promotion. Check the "What Links Here" to see more examples. Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 23:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As of now, I've delinked the most egregiously promotional "back-links," so "What Links Here" won't work as great....

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 04:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that the material is poorly presented does not make it non-notable; neither does the fact that some of the article needs to be deleted say anything about the remainder of the content. The man's verifiably a published author and a published photographer who's had his work featured in multiple notable publications. The article badly needs a cleanup, but I don't think it merits deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is he verifiably a published author of a notable book? What are the multiple notable publications? The only one I see is New York Press which is uncited (should be easily citable). Oh, and a whole bunch of blogs, which look very nicely sourced, but just link to the blogs. There are no reliable third-party assertions of his notability. Links to his pictures (especially 8 links to his flickr page) don't notability make....

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 00:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If notability guidelines contained a category for self-promotion, this article would be a sure inclusion. Krug has certainly pushed the limits of how far one can achieve reknown for one's own efforts. Unfortunately, the standards for article inclusion do not anticipate self-marketing efforts. Here are what the notability standard for creative professionals do provide:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

Frankly, as demonstrated through the article, Krug does not yet achieve notability on any of the four points. To paraphrase, Krug does not show that he has wide recognition from his peers; he has not originated new techniques; created a significant body of work; and is not represented in several notable musuems. Krug may yet achieve this acclaim, but his work has not done this to date. As such, I feel the article should be deleted without prejudice to a future re-creation when he can demonstrated notability. TheMindsEye (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: sources - considering I already voted Keep above. Okay, I'm at a loss for how to work it into the article, but Wired Magazine considers him notable enough to quote ( http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/09/68823 ), and Wired has indeed published his photos ( http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/poptechs-emergi/ ) ( http://www.wired.com/underwire/2007/10/poptech-un-crut/ ). Wired vouching for him is, of itself, enough for me to consider him notable. Also, he definitely is credited as an author on the "for dummies" book. I haven't checked his other claimed credits yet but I'd be surprised if someone who's sold to Wired had to lie about about the rest of their resume. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did this quote and did these photos appear in Wired Magazine as you say? Or did they only appear on Wired's online site as your sources show? Also you make the point that selling to Wired is a sign of credibility, is making your photos available for free use the same sign? As I understand it Krug does not in fact charge for use of his photos. TheMindsEye (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP From this younger generation of mostly priviledged, he is one of but a few who hasn't relied on anyone other than himself to accomplish some very important things for some very important causes. I say keep. Artintegrated (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please elaborate on your mention of "very important things"? What would these be? -- Hoary (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ummm, when you vote, please offer a cogent, meaningful argument. Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 22:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and blatant self-promotion. User:SylviaBoBilvia admitted s/he works for Krug. Also doesn't seem to pass WP:N. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - [4], [5], [6], and [7] would indicate he is notable. The severe COI is an issue but not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first and third of those do look interesting. The fourth seems to say no more than that Bittorrent is handy and that Krug wrote a book about it (two facts we already knew) and I don't know what the second one says other than that the man has a busy e-social [?] life. -- Hoary (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You will note that my keep is a "weak" one. The sources aren't the strongest. I'd say the Georgia Straight is probably the strongest in terms of supporting notability. And authoring a book in the Dummies series adds to it. That's all that I was trying to demonstrate. Taken altogether, it clears the notability bar for me. We do need to separate issues of editting with issues of notability. Regardless of the current deplorable state of the article, we need to judge is based on the evidence for notability. Removing excessive puffery doesn't require deletion if the subject is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I'm saying this as a local: if a lifestyle interview in the Georgia Straight is perhaps the "strongest" assertion of notability someone has, then they're not that notable on an encyclopedic scale. I still think we have yet to come across anything "meaty" in terms of significance. Based on the bombardment the article already displays, I'm sure if there was anything really good it would already be in there. As Hoary says below, there is no "commentary by disinterested others." Someone like Gary Korpan (another local) is way more significant (and is mentioned in way more and better sources), but in terms of his article in this encyclopedia is just about where he should be. This "Kris Krug" just happens to network and work all over the internet, and thus he can be made to appear somewhat significant by a bunch of purely second-rate online sources. Reliable, third-party? Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 22:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not be used for people to astroturf or self promote, and it is clear this is another example of someone attempting to force themselves into the mainstream world via Wiki. --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked again at the first and third of the sources proffered by Whpq, which are the best things I've seen so far. The third is a description of intentions. The first is unintentionally revealing: in its first part, Krug talks about the importance of dotting the web with references to yourself; in the second, he describes his intentions; in the third, he discusses his photography; by the time I embarked on the fourth, I was dozing off. What I'd like to see is commentary by disinterested others on what Krug has done so far; I don't see it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I opted to relist this as I think there are some good points to each side of the discussion, and would prefer to allow some more discussion before any final action is taken, to help reach a more clear consensus. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of the sources I listed above, #1, and #3 represent the best sourcing for notability that I have been able to find. #1 is an article from the Georgia Straight. This is a free weekly news and entertainment paper circulated in the Vancouver area. As such it's a local paper, but Vancouver is a large population centre in Canada so it does have a wide reach. #3 is Business in Vancouver. I'm not familiar with this publication but it is also focused on the Vancouver area. So once again, this can be argued to be local coverage. For me, the fact that this is local coverage does not tip the notability balance to the delete side because the Greater Vancouver area has a population in excess of 2 million. So I don't think being a local publication is a big deal. Other editors may not hold the same opinion. Note, my keep opion is still a weak one. That is, I've not changed my mind. -- Whpq (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the pessimal vote, weak delete. Wphq came up with some good ones, but as Hoary pointed out, they note his intentions (which to me tips the balance in the first place). There's some OK notability out there, but not much of it, and IMO, not enough to meet WP:N, regretfully. The COI for this purpose can be ignored, because it's theoretically fixable - but in Mr. Krug's case, there isn't enough in the way of reliable sources to do that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete everything except [8] seems to be trivial or non-indepedant coverage, but as there's been so much WP:BOMBARDMENT (as nom mentioned) and WP:PUFFERY, it makes it very difficult to whether he is notable or not.--Otterathome (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PBS coverage, conference organizing/panels, photos published in notable venues like Rolling Stone. Sourcing should be improved, but it doesn't require deletion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. God help us the day that anyone who ever had a picture published in a notable magazine becomes notable himself. Armigo (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see a lot of fluff and not much that could help pass WP:CREATIVE. A few of his photos have been published in notable publications, but that doesn't translate into nontrivial coverage of the photographer himself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Krug is used as an example, not an authority, in the RS articles related to a new way of working. There's absolutely nothing to indicate any of his work is significant enough to justify the excessive detail and linking to about pretty much everything he's ever done. And having some work published at a Rolling Stone online or "used with permission" by a LA Times blog is not the same as being a significant, recognized contributor or the subject of significant news coverage. Flowanda | Talk 09:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The self-promotion is over-the-top, but the proper solution is editing, not deletion. More than one photo layout in the LA Times may be enough on its own, and there's more. I understand the WP disdain for personal blogs, but a blog run by one of the largest newpapers is in a differnt category.--SPhilbrick T 18:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to United Way. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dressed this way for United Way[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I'm dressed this way for United Way

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

Non notable and non encyclopedic. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 18:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

possible speedy delete as spam... even charities can spam. Hairhorn (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into United Way This is spammy but belongs there. --WngLdr34 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to United Way as per WngLdr34, above. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into United Way per WngLdr34 ArcAngel (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As above. --Whoosit (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per the statements above, the article should be merged..South Bay (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Merge: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into United Way. This sounds like an notable, interesting program, but doesn't warrant its own page. Shanata (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Meyer (Attorney)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mark A. Meyer (Attorney)

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

Typically tiresome resume, more or less lifted from here and here. He's met some famous people, but that doesn't mean he deserves space in an encyclopedia. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can't find sources that establish notability, so fails WP:GNG and WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability not established, sources indicate pretty standard fare for any middling professional career. N2e (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very very weak keep but redirect. If all of his listings in all of those Who's Who - type directories can be verified, then he is marginally about as notable as I am, which is to say, right on the edge. Nothing in the stub, which reads like an autobiography, notes whether he's been an officer in the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, nor whether he's been in the American Bar Association house of delegates, either of which could settle the issue in his favor. Yet there is one more problem: there is an attorney from North Dakota with the same name who is arguably, more notable [9]. If the consensus is to delete, I'll go along with that, too. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing convincing in the article that would assert notability. Independent coverage is minuscule (as far as I can tell, reduced to a one short mention of his visit with Iliescu, as issued by a gvt press agency); the rest is promotional and merely attests that Meyer exists (which I think no one is doubting). Among the chaotic and unconvincing "references", a Wikipedia article is cited for some reason I can't begin to fathom. The person is non-notable, the article is garbage. Dahn (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DubLi[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Non-notable company with still no reliable independent sources. The reference to Jordin Sparks doesn't even mention this company. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this website is not notable in any way that I can see, and in fact seems like promotion as the article reads like an advertisement. ArcAngel (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's just an advertisement. Eeekster (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, besides the fact that it's a well-executed scam. Alternatively, find some real journalistic sources to cite. Good luck with that. 72.214.62.234 (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly this article is an attempt to advertise the web site, which doesn't seem notable from what I can tell from searching for sources (I can't come up with anything but press releases). -- Atama頭 23:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless they can cite some noteworthy (i.e. non-Dubli) citations.--64.201.38.62 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Doctor Who (series 4). MuZemike 02:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who campfire trailer[edit]

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

Delete, or merge into Doctor Who (series 4), or move to a Doctor Who wiki. I like Doctor Who, and I generally try to improve DW related articles where I can. This is a well written article, but I can't see how a trailer for the series can qualify as notable. As far as I can tell, the advert has not received any advertising awards or prizes, and no coverage whatsoever in the mainstream media. Yes, it was released theatrically, but that could apply to any number of trailers, especially Hollywood films. That certainly doesn't make it notable, and Wikipedia is not the right place to hold such an article. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Doctor Who (series 4), agree, this doesn't meet notability guidelines of itself. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does it fail WP:N? Rlendog (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree that it is unusual that a trailer would be notable. On the other hand, this trailer did receive coverage in multiple sources, so appears to meet the general notability requirements. And it managed to be promoted to a good article, so even if the notability is less than normal, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to not deleting a GA. And anyway, I'm not sure deletion is appropriate at all - given the significant sourced content, at worst a merge should be considered (even the nom seems to acknowledge this). For which a merge discussion would be more appropriate than AfD. But, given its GA status, I don't even think we should consider merging unless it fails a GAR. And if merged, the content would still remain due to the sourced content, so given that it at least has marginal notability based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, I think keeping this one makes most sense. Rlendog (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has four inline citation, three of which are Doctor Who Magazine two of which are from the Doctor Who News Page, meaning it has only 2 3 actual sources. It's worth pointing out that GA criteria has no mention of notability, so trying to get this article delisted through a review on those grounds would be fairly futile. In any case, even featured articles can be put under AfD nominations, so I don't think good article status should mean we automatically preserve this article's content. Having said that, I agree with Rlendog and OrangeDog that merging, rather than deletion, seems the best course here, but I do not think this article should remain independent. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken on the lack of GA criteria on notability (although FAs do have that criterion). I don't think that GA status should automatically preserve an article, but I think it is unusual to delete (or even merge) a GA and thus some additional caution is warranted. There are actually three different sources used, since the first two come from the now defunct Outpost Gallifrey site, not Doctor Who Magazine, but even two sources can satisfy the criteria of WP:N, and do we know that there are no other sources that just don't happen to be cited in the article? Rlendog (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Has the article creator (User:Sceptre) been notified of this AfD? Per, WP:AfD, "while not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." While it is hardly necessary to inform the creator of every stub or WP:CRYSTAL AfD nomination, it seems appropriate when a GA is being nominated. Rlendog (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per OrangeDog, not individually notable. And just how the HELL is this GA-class? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was surprised to see that it was a GA, but there was a valid GA template indicating it went through the proper process. Rlendog (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable given the OG citations which are sufficient enough to confer notability by virtue of being reliable. Yes, the site is down. We're just waiting for Gallifrey Base to update their link structure. And even if this isn't notable under N, it definitely counts as summary style to Doctor Who (series 4) Sceptre ^(talk) 02:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I usually notify article creators, I forgot in this case. I don't see how citing Outpost Gallifrey makes a topic notable though; that seems to imply that anything mentioned in any reputable source is automatically notable, which I would disagree with. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 14:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the baseline for notability:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
"Significant coverage": Yes, the sources address the trailer almost exclusively.
"Reliable secondary sources": Outpost Gallifrey has been held up to fit this in FAC discussions, so it should be good enough for AFD.
"Independent of the subject": Again, OG has been held to fit this in previous AFDs.

So, we can presume this satisfies the inclusion criteria, and even if it doesn't, it's a proper spinout of the series article, because merging it back would create undue emphasis on it. Instead of targeting well-sourced GAs about fiction, why not target unsourced articles with no real world information? If this AFD ends up as anything except a "keep", I would be very disappointed with the application of notability standards. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that interpretation. I can't see how citing Doctor Who Magazine, Outpost Gallifrey and one branding agency signify "Significant coverage" under any stretch of the imagination. If articles about this trailer had appeared in the national press and on the BBC website then it would be different. I don't dispute these sources' reliability, but constructing an article about a tv series trailer out of a few minor articles is bordering on fan cruft. To reiterate, I think merging into Doctor Who (series 4) is the best option. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The adjective "significant" does not refer to how many sources it has, it refers to how much the source covers. One secondary source, or, if you want to be pedantic, two, is enough to establish notability. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the links and references to Series 4. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "a forty-second television trailer" is much less than an episode, I do not see separate comment on the trailer. I see one article about the promotion campaign for the new series, including the trailer, & the 3 articles in the magazine, which is just barely an independent source. I'm not particularly concerned with sourcing--one can argue a sourcing argument in either direction. What I am concerned with in the excessive breakdown of articles into subunits. Even most characters should be ordinarily merged into combination articles . I consider GA status irrelevant to the discussion--it deals with the content of the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge but not because there's anything wrong with the content: it's well structured and apparently wasn't created until, several weeks after web-based anticipation of the trailer and release, it was written about in a reliable secondary source (Doctor Who Magazine). I note that at Talk:Doctor Who campfire trailer, Sceptre points out a good reason against merging: it might unbalance the target article, even if placed at the end. But maybe it still isn't a discrete subject, and it may make more sense in context, since the subject of the trailer is Doctor Who (series 4). If there is a merge, the article about the series would need quite a lot of work. The main reason for merging seems that it is disproportionate given coverage of other subjects, even in cult TV, and might wrongly be used as a precedent, and from Wikipedia's point of view, there are already 1500 articles related to Doctor Who, and research could be done to improve those rather than create new ones (from Doctor Who fans' point of view, work could be done to create more fanzines...) --Cedders^tk 21:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Certainly notable and works perfectly well as a stand alone article. Jeni ^(talk) 22:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy Logic[edit]

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

DELETE for failing WP:BAND. I did an extensive Google News archive search and found nothing related. JBsupreme (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BAND, and in fact, WP:MUSIC in general, is where it's at. I'm gonna nom their first album, which is found over here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find any sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless sources are forthcoming. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microvision Incorporated[edit]

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

A promo of a nonnotable business - Altenmann >t 17:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S to those who will be doing google check: do not confuse with Microvision. - Altenmann >t 17:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable IJA (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as per WP:CORP. They make lasers for barcode scanners. If one will forgive me for putting my tongue in my cheek, it's depressing that these lasers aren't even outfitted for mounting on the heads of friggin' sharks. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CORP. ArcAngel (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No way this business is going to ever become a household name. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company has just (literally, within the last week) shipped its picoprojector product. Since picoprojectors are a current "hot" technology item, it would be short-sighted to delete the article right at the moment the company actually does something you guys might consider relevant. (In any case, the comments for delete above show that the commentators don't even know what Microvision does for barcode scanners - they *don't* make the lasers, they make the scanning MEMS mirrors and assembly. Is a vote for delete relevant from someone who knows too little about a subject to actually comment on its notability?) As per WP:CORP, in fact, I cite: http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/16/microvisions-show-wx-pico-projector-out-soon/ (and numerous other articles from gadget sites over the last year and a bit) 81.156.5.130 (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. MuZemike 02:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia–Venezuela relations[edit]

There is no new notable information on this article, which isn't already covered on "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia", this article just repeats what the international recognition article says and thus this article is redundant. Also I don't think this article is notable. Venezuela simply recognising Abkhazia is not a reason to make an article regarding their diplomatic relations. If they are to conduct in diplomatic relations it could simply be added to "Foreign relations of Abkhazia" and "Foreign relations of Venezuela", but there is nothing special/ unique between the relations of Abkhazia and Venezuela. IJA (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since I'm the nominator. IJA (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sounds more esoteric than it is. There has already been news coverage of this. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes there has been news coverage and this information is already featured on "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia", why repeat it twice? IJA (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but given that this is Hugo Chavez, that tilts the scales. I agree that ordinarily, if this was say a less controversial leader, it would not warrant an article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - already covered at International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; we don't need a new article every time someone grants recognition to Abkhazia. Also, this is mainly a stunt and we probably won't hear much about the relationship after this, as was the case with Abkhazia–Nicaragua relations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Based just on a brief exchange of diplomatic words which, ironically, are more related to the Russian-Venezuela relations than to the Ab-V diplomacy. The article is not expandable in the foreseeable future. The same is true for the South Ossetia–Venezuela relations. --Kober^Talk 19:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The claim that "this article just repeats what the international recognition article says and thus this article is redundant" is false. The international recognition article has 54 words under the Venezuela entry, meanwhile the Abkhazia–Venezuela relations article has 155 words, including sourced comments from Abkhazian and Venezuelan leaders on the relationship. There are over 300,000 results for "Venezuela recognizes Abkhazia" on Google [10] so there is a significant interest in the relations between the two countries. As one of the first nations to recognize Abkhazia, don't think that Venezuela's friendly gesture will be forgotten in Sukhum. --Tocino 22:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First off, Abkhaz sentiments towards Venezuela is not a valid reason to have a Wikipedia article on the virtually non-existent relations. Second, "recognition" is indeed a notable topic and is covered where it should be. The article is about the bilateral diplomatic relations, not recognition. Again, the article's content is limited to a few statements by diplomats. Wikipedia is neither a news collection, nor a Wikisource. --Kober^Talk 04:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes there may be more words on this article, but as I have said there is no new notable information on this article. All this article says is that Venezuela recognised Abkhazia and that they intend to engage in diplomacy. That is basically it, there are no other notable incidents regarding foreign relations. Also google hits are not to be used to support arguments on wikipedia IJA (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Tocino explains, this is a sufficiently important topic in its own right. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. It would probably be best merged somewhere more appropriate, but c'est la vie. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article is clearly notable as shown by User:Tocino. Thus the nominator's claim that there is no new notable information on this article can't be a reason for deletion, but, quite the contrary, for improvement. Whytye (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Abkhazia is not a state, the article is definitely OR, as per nom. Iberieli (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, according to Venezuela, Abkhazia is a state. --Tocino 19:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relations have already received a lot of press, and there are plenty of reliable sources. Offliner (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Venezuela is one of only three countries that recognizes Abkhazia so bilateral relations are quite significant. Also, there's been alot of press on this matter. 189.105.6.109 (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article adds nothing to what is already in International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, i.e. it discusses recognition. According to the text of the article, relations haven't actually been established yer, only discussions about the possibility of establishing relations. Abkhazia doesn't even have a seat on in the UN. --Martintg (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being a non-UN member state does not prevent Abkhazia from having diplomatic relations with other countries. --Tocino 19:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You'd then expect this category not to exist at all, wouldn't you? _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No point in having a stand-alone article at this point. Also, the article focuses exclusively on V's recognition of A, and this would seem to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Finally, the sources identified thus far do not constitute "significant coverage" (as defined by WP:GNG) for the topic of A-V relations. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we have dozens of articles on Kosovo's foreign relationships, why delete this? _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 21:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Lisa (film, 2009)[edit]

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

Fails future film guidelines - film is listed as being in devleopment on IMDb and principal filming has not yet started. Lugnuts (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This article has no references, it is less than a stub and it uses poor grammar. I would be willing to change my vote if the article is heavily updated, but till then it will remain a "delete" from me. Regards IJA (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Even if filming had started, it should be at Mona Lisa (2011 film). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator. Shanata (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The article needs improvement, but this is a matter for the usual writing process. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald I. Meshbesher[edit]

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

The article about this attorney does not, and probably will not, reach the substantial level of notability to warrant an encyclopedia article. The notability, even within the Twin Cities, isn't even clear --simply being the named partner of a small (less than 40 attorney) law firm isn't substantial enough. While I realize trial attorneys rarely have larger law firms, I also do not see the same level of notability of trial attorneys like Gerry Spence or Joe Jamail. As such, I recommend deletion. Bobak (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~Keep. Appears to be notable, and his career goes back ages. Mention in Coen film (great name!) helps a bit. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. I'm satisfied he satisfies the notability requirement, whether or not he is a "legend."--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Ron Meshbesher is a legend in the Midwest. That's exactly why the Coen brothers are using his name in their film. He represented some of the most well known cases in Midwest including the Piper Kidnapping, Ming Sen Shiue case, the Elisabeth Congdon murder trial...http://www.lawandpolitics.com/minnesota/default.asp?section=ARTICLES&module=ITEM&id=302 --Lhc67 —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Reply to above comment. Please note that there may be a conflict of interest WP:COI because you are participating in a deletion discussion of an article that you created. See [11]. Also, it does not mean that by writting "Strong Keep", your article will not be deleted, especially if you are the creator. For an article to be deleted, Wikipedia users will give their opinion on whether it will be deleted or keept. Everyone's opinion counts. Therefore, if you want to comment or to justify why this article should not be deleted, I suggest you to write "Comment" instead of "Strong Keep". Thanks! Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 21:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Sometimes I lose my head and don't know what am I writting ;)... Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 02:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting an article does not mean you have a COI in an AfD like this.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I deprodded it a couple days ago. There are plenty of gnews hits on him, some with significant coverage. "Ron Meshbesher" gives better search results than his full name. Also, article creation does not count as conflict of interest, and the norm is to write "Keep" or "Delete" if that is one's intention in AfD debates.John Z (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless those who wish to keep are willing to expend the effort to keep a single-purpose account, whose only undeleted contributions (save two) are related to the page's subject, from continuing to treat this page as an unencylopedic hagiography. Kablammo (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Enigma^msg 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messinho[edit]

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

This is a fake article created by vandal Jergsenkrupp (talk) —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 17:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoaxes. No-one of either name in Flamengo's first-team squad. The only person of anything resembling either name in Flamengo (sports club)'s wiki is a paralympic athlete called Claudemir. The Brazilian FA have a full list of players registered since the year dot, at www.cbf.com.br/bid/book.pdf (3500 pages of PDF, don't try and load it unless you really, really want to :-) there are a number of Claudemir dos Santos, but no-one of "Messinho"'s full name or date of birth, no Messinho, no Aston. Hoaxes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoaxes. Good work by both the nominator and Struway2 in spotting them / proving their fakeability (like notability, but for fakes!) Giant Snowman 20:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoaxes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant hoaxes Spiderone 20:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as hoaxes (due to the research of both Jergenkrupp and Struway2). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tagged both of them for speedy deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdurrahman Roza Haxhiu[edit]

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

As it stands there is no evidence that this player meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. As this discussion points out, having a stadium named after you doesn't necessarily make you notable. Spiderone 16:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 16:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Having something named after you doesn't infer notability. Giant Snowman 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abdurrahman Roza Haxhiu Stadium. He might not be notable, but the stadium named after him is. --Angelo (talk) 08:11, 25 September 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 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the stadium article, at this point it doesn't even have enough to warrant a subsection --just a sentence-- in the stadium article. --Bobak (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Angelo.romano. I can find sources documenting the stadium (albeit not to great depth). I cannot find anything documenting the person whom it is named after. The redirect, that didn't require AFD, was and is the way to go. Uncle G (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I just didn't want to redirect it just in case someone found proof he played for Albania. Spiderone 12:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strange one this is, I was wondering if he was mentioned on Albania national football team and he isn't. No citation so I would go with delete. Govvy (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He is, however, mentioned in roughly metre-high letters on the roof of the stadium building. Have a picture. ☺ So there's nothing wrong with a redirect here. It doesn't require administrator tools to enact a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No consensus to delete after 21 days. My personal opinion is that it should be redirected to the album but that's an editorial decision. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snuff (song)[edit]

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

contested prod, lacks 3rd party sources, does not meet WP:NSONGS RadioFan (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted. The band haven't confirmed if it will even be a single yet, only Metal Hammer. So we have absolutely no clue, because it has not been officialy confirmed. I don't think Wikipedia needs a page based on something that is not YET fact. Bring the page back if the fact is proven later, but for now, this is a speculation page. Epeu (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the reference added is an ad from the band in a music publication. As a primary source it doesn't do much to establish the notability of this topic. It may be notable one day, but not today.--RadioFan (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pause the discussion and start over in a few weeks. Without reliable sources independent of the band, it should go away; HOWEVER, the single will be released in 5 days. It is a well formatted article with some prose and there is no point in losing that. The bands fans should do the work and make sure it has sources to show notability within the next few days. Miami33139 (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd agree if there was a good encyclopedic article here that simply needed proper references, but that is not the case. It's original research. Not worth keeping. This article should be deleted. It may be recreated later when it can meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 15:57, 23 September 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 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. FMQB indicates that the song has been released to Active Rock and Alternative radio formats, and as of October 1, 2009, Mediabase's daily updates at AllAccess.com (membership required, unfortunately, so I can't add a direct link; if there's an equivalent out there I'd appreciate it) place "Snuff" at number 33 and number 47 on the aforementioned formats, respectively. Gongshow ^⊕ 04:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now appears accurate and meets WP:NOTE. Shanata (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article claims (admittedly without sources) that the song charted. Unless that is inaccurate, the song meets WP:NSONGS. Rlendog (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The subject's biography, while not unsourced, certainly lacks the quality of sources one would like to see. However, consensus is to keep this article, and an alternative argument as to notability as been made and accept within this discussion. While this is a BLP, it is not negative in tone, and does the subject no harm. I would encourage those interested in this article to find sources, however, as I suspect the outcome could be different on a subsequent nomination. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Barr[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 08:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course - surely this person has been nominated in error. Every football fan in the London knows who she is, she used to present Goals Extra. She was also presented ITV news regularly a few years ago. It's outrageous someone even considered nominating her for deletion. Tris2000 (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're new to Wikipedia, so I'll take some time to explain how notability works. To qualify as notable (i.e., to warrant an article on Wikipedia), every topic/person/anything else has to satisfy the notability guidelines. The notability guidelines may differ for each specific topic, and the notability criteria for journalists is given at WP:CREATIVE. It would be helpful if you could spare a few minutes and go through the criteria. Of course, I'm just assuming good faith here. It's perfectly possible that you're more experienced in AfDs then I think, and that you genuinely feel this person is notable. If so, please point out the exact criterion which Felicity Barr satisfies, and please avoid arguments like "everyone knows who she is" and "it is outrageous nominating her for deletion". If you have any further queries you may post them here or on my talk page. Regards, ƒ(Δ)² 06:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not new to Wikipedia at all. Well, I guess it's how you define "new". I started editing in July 2003 and have created a few articles since then. I've also made 850 contributions/edits. So no, I'm not "new". I am aware of WP:CREATIVE. She is just simply too much of a well known figure, in my eyes, to merit deletion. She would present the news alongside Sir Trevor McDonald, certainly the most famous newsreader in Britain if not one of the most famous in the world. It's hard to think what more Felicity could do to make a name for herself. She is one of the few female SPORTS newsreaders out there. In case you are confusing our Felicity with someone else, check out some of the pics on Google images - you'll instantly recognise her, I am sure, and realise her importance on our small screen. --Tris2000 (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - she is possibly notable, but more sources would be helpful. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the problem, you see. I don't see any sources indicating notability. ƒ(Δ)² 06:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that notability guidelines must be interpreted with a grain of salt and commonsense. Google searches show that, while there's indeed a lack of third party sources, she has had a remarkable TV career (her cv, her Al Jazeera page or her old ITV page. This means she is most probably a well known person by many and her career can be reliably enough documented by her CV and similar sources. As such I think she deserves a stub, and a tag to indicate that sources are needed, more than deletion. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point (and Tris' above). It comes down to whether the policy should be followed to the letter. Perhaps WP:IAR is applicable here. Or perhaps a CV isn't a reliable source. Depends on your POV, I suppose. ƒ(Δ)² 10:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with CV is that it is a primary source. I agree that secondary sources are needed. However in a deletion debate I personally also consider if the information is truly worthless or not. In this case, we're not dealing with the everyday vanity page, but with a subject where a case for notability, even if not sanctioned by third-party sources, can be reliably established. For sure the article needs love and editors must be encouraged to find third-party sources, but deletion seems to me too drastic in this case. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. My stance differs from yours though. My opinion is that if no reliable sources can be found to justify notability, then a BLP should be deleted (even if, as you say, the primary source indicates notability). I tend to favor my deletionist side when dealing with BLPs. Maybe that's getting in the way here. ƒ(Δ)² 10:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must first of all say it is a pleasure to talk with you. Even if we disagree, you're debating with utmost civility, and looking how bitter and blunt become many WP discussions, I am really happy of having met you. That said, well, I do not agree with what I perceive as a bit of paranoia on BLPs, but that's not the forum to discuss it. About the AfD, I'd say we should wait for more editors to jump in. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I won't say anything more on this topic. ƒ(Δ)² 11:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be welcome to intervene and further discuss whenever other editors participate and bring their arguments. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:21, 24 September 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 16:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The phrasing of the GNG is problematic with required to prominent journalists,especially TV journalists, compounding the difficulties in searching caused by the difficulty in crafting searches that distinguish between stories about them and stories covered by them. The guideline needs to be applied carefully rather than mechanically. For TV journalists, it would probably be better to apply an analog of WP:ENT. As famous and genuinely notable as he was, Walter Cronkite would probably have had GNG issues for most of his career. Clearly WP:IAR should be considered if a policy needs citation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin Please refer to the discussion here. Consensus (6 vs 1 [where 1 is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]) is that WP:ENTERTAINER does not apply to journalists or TV newsreaders. ƒ(Δ)² 17:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a brief, low-profile discussion started and "closed" by you without even having the courtesy to notify me of the potential debate. It ignores the well-establish practice/consensus that more than one notability guideline (eg, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR) may apply to an article. And it never addresses what the guideline actually says, particularly with regard to "television personalities" and "opinion makers." Finally, that 6-1 "consensus" counts each of your posts as a separate !vote, which is pretty pathetic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still open, if you wish to comment there. I haven't closed it. I wanted a third opinion; I already know yours. Additionally (I've mentioned this before) I don't think multiple policies apply here at all so well-established practice or not, it doesn't apply here. At all. And finally, I'm not counting each of my own posts as a separate !vote, I'm counting the comments left by other editors in that discussion. Please get your facts straight. Cheers, ƒ(Δ)² 10:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete per consensus that this does not belong on Wikipedia and, in my opinion, WP:CSD#G3 vandalism. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rindiddig[edit]

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

Page contains no more information on this word then a dictionary definition, so does not pass WP:NOTDIC. Also, the person has said on their user page that they made this up, so page does not pass WP:MADEUP. As well as this there are no google hits, or google dictionary hits so WP:NEO seems to apply to this page Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. PROD was contested by creator - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD-G1 (patent nonsense) Also delete as per WP:NOTDIC and WP:MADEUP per nom. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 17:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, and thanks for your !vote. But please remember that G1 only applies to pages where the content is either a random string of characters (e.g. "gfbgnbv"), or it is so completely confused that you can not possibly make sense of it (e.g. "Hello green lol sky is black starts pretty turns gone"), see WP:PN for more wonderful cases of gibberish ;). In this case it's fairly easy to make sense of the page, so I don't think that G1 is appropriate. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct - just my misinterpretation of what criterion it would fall under, but it still qualifies as speedy deletion, no doubt. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 17:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Obviously. (Kingpin - if it is a patently deletable, why fuss over which criterion applies - would you accept vandalism?) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd accept IAR :), but would rather call it WP:SNOW, if that's not too fussy (I don't want any vegetables today! ;D) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:MADEUP. Obviously, everything was made up at some time, but the guideline makes clear that notability must be established outside of WP. (and there are no references in Google outside of WP) By the way, this article is a perfect example of why I think that newly created articles should have a default NOINDEX template until reviewed for possible deletion. This editor has achieved their desired purpose, as the word is now found in Google, an achievement not as likely if posted to, say a personal web site. Deleting this article will minimize, but not eliminate the damage. While the damage it admittedly minor, it could easily have been prevented.--SPhilbrick T 17:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I don't think I need to say why. IJA (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this is made up. Speedy delete since common sense dictates we should. JBsupreme (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Snowball clause, WP:MADEUP and spam. I don't think it would be unfair for a nonadmin to delete.--WngLdr34 (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. ArcAngel (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Userfy.. No consensus that article meets inclusion guidelines, and article creator has agreed to work on it in his user space. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Acuff[edit]

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

Prod removed by creator. No reliable sources given (or found) to demonstrate notability of an individual. Having been to the White House is not a valid claim to notability. tedder (talk) 06:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy A Google News Search suggests to me that he might be notable enough for an article, as a recognized expert in his field, but to establish him as such here would require a completely new article with many cited sources. As there are no citations here, there's nothing worth keeping. But from the Talk page it looks like the creator knows the article is currently inadequate but didn't realize it would be a problem; he seems ready and willing to work on improving it in his userspace. Propaniac (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the few news articles I saw seemed to be from PR and less-reliable sources. If I missed some, please say so. tedder (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am sorry this is causing such a problem, I obviously need help crafting the article properly. The fact that you won't find that many reference's to Jerry on a simple Google search is because of the industry he is in. He is a leading voice in Pharmaceutical selling, and if you are not familiar with that industry, most of what people discuss about selling is limited to that industry and would not be in trade rags or lots of website. Jerry has several published books and is an avid speaker and teaches at a university. What am I missing to satisfy that he is indeed a leading individual in his area? I have already agreed to take this down and work on it in my own space. It just seems like the only comments have been critical, with only one person actually offering me help. Isn't this a community of people supporting each other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrpsu (talk • contribs) 22:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jrpsu, this is a community, but new pages that appear to be created as a conflict of interest or to advertise an entity are often not looked upon terribly well. Removing the proposed deletion looks that way too. If you know how, feel free to do it (edit the article, create User:Jrpsu/Jerry Acuff, then say so here). Otherwise I'll simply move it over, if you'd like me to.

Even though the industry is (supposedly) quiet, that's true of many industries and topics- my obsession, motorcycling, has the same thing. Anyhow, WP:V is probably the most important thing you can read right now. In other words, Wikipedia is all about reliable sources and verifiability, not truth. Write the article first, don't hope the house will build itself. Drop by my talk page for further guidance. tedder (talk) 05:19, 25 September 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 16:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Sure it's a horrid article, but the man has authored three books for Wiley, as well as being CEO of something.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete It looks like the sourcing just doesn't pass WP:BIO, but I'm willing to change my mind if more sourcing is presented. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The reversion to the fictional character makes this discussion moot. Kevin (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Porter[edit]

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

Non-notable rap artist. JaGa^talk 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete isn't this Spam and WP:Advertising? --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. --Bobak (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this rapper. Joe Chill (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC nor WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article was originally about a fictional footballer from Dream Team. It was hijacked (by KingRitz) and turned into an article about a non-notable rapper. – LATICS talk 23:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've restored the article to the last version before it was hijacked. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Elect the Dead Symphony. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elect the Dead Orchestra[edit]

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

Not an article. No sources, appears to be cut/paste from part of a template. Durova³¹¹ 15:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this probably could be speedied under criteria G1, G2, or A1. Deserted Cities 04:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep.~~ The artist is unquestionably notable but very little info for this future release is available, would like to see a release date. The most useful third party reference I can find is this plus there is this from his webpage. Interestingly, what little info is on the page is wrong, it isn't a studio album, it's a live DVD; I'll work on the page a bit. J04n(talk page) 00:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. After editing the page I discovered that Elect the Dead Symphony already exists, should be redirected to that page. J04n(talk page) 01:28, 23 September 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 16:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Keep as snowball close. The assumed well-intentioned nominator is obviously not aware of the overwhelming precedent. There has been sufficient discussion here and an avalanche of consecutive keeps to make it reasonable to conclude that this nomination has no chance to succeed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summit School (Queens, New York)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources about the school. Don't see how this could be notable. A list confirming a school on a New York department of education is not enough. That is like a New York listing of all the orphanages. But do orphanages ever get publicity? Generally no because nobody cares! People care more about schools than orphanages. It needs media coverage before editors can write about their programs. We need to know why a school should be included. Esthertaffet (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Esthertaffet (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons in the first and second AfD both from less than three months ago. And what do we have against this particular high school anyway for this barrage of nominations? -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, speedy close, per the two AFD discussions from less than three months ago. High schools are generally notable, and this is at best a dispute over the adequacy of the article's current sourcing rather that a genuine challenge to notability. At worst, it's a waste of time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009 July 27 they suggested to wait for a month if nothing has changed. Well nothing has changed which is why I have nominated for deletion. Esthertaffet (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High schools and all the rest of the articles on Wikipedia need to prove they are notable first before editors can write about them. Esthertaffet (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per the reasoning of C.Fred in that Schools get the benefit of the doubt that they are notable unless proven otherwise, which is the case here. ArcAngel (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRYSTAL, which rejects claims that it will be important in the future as a reason to keep the article. We don't have to wait until the subject is notable. If it's not notable now, it should be deleted. Esthertaffet (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is ArcAngel's statement under WP:CRYSTAL? Because we "give the benefit of the doubt?" The school is deemed notable because it exists, not because it might become notable. tedder (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The school needs to be notable in order to have its own article. Right now, I haven’t seen any sources that say it is notable. Therefore this school should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It’s not simply the school exist then it should have its own article. It needs to establish notability too. Esthertaffet (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per the "high schools are inherently notable" !guideline, as well as references that the school actually exists (it isn't a hoax). tedder (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: High schools are inherently notable, see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes( "Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability.") and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (essay) ("As an example, generally speaking, any high school is deemed to be sufficiently notable for an article, but lower-level schools are generally not. While not a hard-and-fast rule, this is the status quo for Wikipedia inclusion and is consistently maintained through discussions of various schools, school districts, and their creatability and keepability (or lack thereof). Thus "inherent notability" is basically codification of OSE."). Three AfDs? --Milowent (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please tell me what makes this school notable? I haven't heard any reason. Esthertaffet (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable on Wikipedia because the consensus is that high schools are notable, provided the school exists. tedder (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have very few default rules around here, and this is a good and reasonable one. If we eliminated this one, we'd have enormous time-wasting debates over various schools. In the end, if a few notnotable schools end up in the project (and i'm not saying this one isn't notable), its probably well worth it. --Milowent (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs reliable sources, sources that provide information on the subject not if the school exists or not. If that was the case then every single orphanage should have its own article as it exist. I don't think it's fair that we should keep this school when all the other orphanages are not. Orphanages exist and are important in a community as it takes care of children. This school is simply a special school that isolates children from the mainstream. Why should we include this school when orphanages are not kept? Esthertaffet (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All high schools are notable. The information in the article is easily verified by this entry from the New York State Education Department. Cunard (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Minimalism. The content has already been merged so a redirect must be kept. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minimalism (technical communication)[edit]

I've merged this article into the Minimalism page, which considers minimalism in various arts.LCP (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you have, in this edit. Therefore the edit history must be kept, so that you are not falsely credited with writing that was actually done by Bobdoyle and others. Deletion forms no part of the article merger process at any stage. Please follow that process. That includes using the correct edit summaries when you do mergers, so that edit history and author credit isn't lost or falsified. Uncle G (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 21:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Charity Cars[edit]

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

The article reads entirely as an advertisement and would need a rewrite to become encyclopedic. While there are third party references in the References section, the article does nothing to assert the notability of the subject, instead it just explains the benefits of the program and features of the web site. Aka042 (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I looked through the references and could not find any that link 800Charity Cars to Free Charity Cars, while the article alleges that the two are linked. All external references discuss 800Charity Cars only. --Aka042 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam Miami33139 (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources that discuss this Social Networking Site. It appears to be an advertisement to increase the visibility of the site. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Death to Spam, all hail somewhat decent posts? but yeah this is clearly Spam and against WP:Advertising --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete with fire! --Bobak (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional material. Notability is questionable. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rickett[edit]

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

Autobiographical Lawrence Ryan (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no recommendation at this time but, being an autobigraphy is not a reason to delete an article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I listed this article for deletion for a number of reasons that stem from it being an autobiography that are listed as issues on the article's page. These include:

1. Peacock Terms: Since the author is the subject of the wiki, they propped up any successes that they may have (debatable) achieved.

2. The neutrality is disputed because it is autobiographical. The author only represents the positive accomplishments he felt that he made, while ignoring all of the negatives that he was involved in at the same time. He was a politician, and each and every politician overlooks all of the negative acts they committed in favor of the positive acts.

3. His notability is in question. He served one 3-year term as a municipal city councillor. Is this sufficient to be notable and included in an encyclopedia? If so, then there ought to be millions of pages on wikipedia for all of the insignificant city councillors that ever served.

4. It is certainly a biased viewpoint because the subject of the the wiki was the author himself. Lawrence Ryan (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having Peacock terms is a reason to edit an article not delete it. Questionable neutrality is also a reason to edit an article, not delete it.
Delete - I can not find any indication that he is notable in general terms or as a politician ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Digestive Hour[edit]

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

This is a recently coined word, covered with a semi-scientific explanation JoJan (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks pretty much like something made up one day - the reference to "Moore, Duong et al." seems to mean those are the names of the students who came up with it. No reliable sources that I can find. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:MADEUP Violation. --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial mention in any reliable secondary sources that I can find. Appears to be a neologism. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Bobak (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. A rather amusing hoax. Nice try, guys, but this one has to be excreted. No offense.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under the invisible CSD provision for hoaxes and nonsense. JBsupreme (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a something made up one day. These guys are trying to be humorous, and even succeeding, but Wikipedia is not a humor magazine, it's an encyclopedia. Invertzoo (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete - notability not asserted. Kevin (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addison Steel[edit]

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

Seemingly not notable musician/songwriter. Without additional sources, this article fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:RS. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material. I tagged this article per A7 previously, and it was deleted. ceranthor 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, I believe G4 is for articles which have been created after a closed AfD discussion, rather than re-creation after being subject to CSD. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Abed Schekaiban[edit]

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. A merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Braeburn Capital[edit]

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

Hasn't been updated, doesn't meet the WP:N guidelines. Jupiter.solarsyst.comm.arm.milk .universe 22:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Money management arm of Apple computers. Notable coverage. A bit boring, but manages $26 billion. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Apple Computers. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fever-True[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, promotional, though not blatant enough to be a G11. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all above. --Bobak (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement of patent nostrum.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam for non-notable product.
comment. The creating editor also has EL-spammed the Feverfew article, and created Tanetin, another spam article, which I've nominated for Speedy. TJRC (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn but IMHO this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler-Noll-Vo hash function[edit]

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

Article is unsupported by any reliable sources. The article topic is not notable enough for reliable sources right now. It does not seem that this topic should be in the wikipedia at present- prime-based hash functions are two a penny. Moreover, this article links only to sources controlled by User:Landon_Curt_Noll and is largely written by him. Phil Spectre (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new, shorter version is acceptable, so I'd like to withdraw this AfD. I'm not sure how to do it officially, though. Is it ok for me to just remove the notice on the page? Phil Spectre (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support deletion of this article. The article has 24 different editors (not counting bots) so I don't think it is fair to say that it "is largely written by [Landon_Curt_Noll]", indeed the article was not even originally created by Landon_Curt_Noll. Good non-cryptographic hash functions are not "two a penny", they are hard to design to get good results. Most hash function designers concentrate upon cryptographically strong hashes that are a lot slower. So there is definitely a place for the non-cryptographic alternatives that are faster. The FNV happens to fulfil a requirement in non-secure situations. The fasm project is well known and uses FNV for internal table lookups. From what I have seen the FNV hash has been around for some time now and seems to be quite well respected. HumphreyW (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria for an article are WP:RS and WP:N, not whether you think it's a good hash. Notability is not earned by association: there is a precedent that being used by a notable project doesn't make the hash notable. And I looked at fasm but it doesn't even mention FNV. As for reliability, all of the sources are just Noll. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I didn't realise the fasm article does not mention it. But the authors site has it mentioned here. HumphreyW (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The way I see it, the fact that fasm didn't, and still doesn't, mention FNV means that this hash isn't all that important a part. Either way, there are still no reliable sources and it's not notable. Phil Spectre (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well of course an assembler is not going to make big news about the internal hash functions used, that wouldn't make sense. I am not sure how one would really objectively judge notability, but a quick Google search returns 154000 results. If even 1/10th of those results are unique then that seems significant to me. There are a large number of pages linking to the Wikipedia FNV page, deleting the FNV page would break a significant number of websites. In the Google results we can find mentions at NIST and MSDN. HumphreyW (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        MurmurHash was recently deleted, and it has about as many mentions on Google, so that can't be enough. The precedent is that you need reliable sources to confirm notability, not just tens of thousands of hits on Google. Phil Spectre (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As Phil Spectre says, counting Google hits is not research. Google hit counts are estimates, not actual counts. They have no value. So stop counting hits and start citing sources. That's the way to make an argument for keeping that holds water. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per discussion with original proposer above. Both the Wikipedia page and the original source pages are mentioned and linked in too large a number of significant websites for me to consider the source as not reliable or not notable. HumphreyW (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The NIST link is not a WP:RS, since all it does it point to the same old Noll site, along with the one for MurmurHash, which was deleted due to a lack of reliable sources. If it doesn't count for that hash, why should it count for this one? The MSDN link is not only a blog, but it contradicts WP:N in that the MS employee states that MS has no intention of ever using FNV, and the comments from the peanut gallery point out FNV's terrible avalanche characteristics. If you want to keep it, you absolutely must prove its notability with reliable sources. Fortunately, this is not a vote. Phil Spectre (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It's my first AfD and I forgot. Thanks for fixing it. Phil Spectre (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is certainly plenty of discussion of it online with lots of people referring to it as widely used. The only questionable part is the "reliable" requirement of WP:N, but that is largely for verifiability and the large number of medium-quality sources (university lectures, peer-reviewed academic publications using FNV, tech sites, etc.) make this quite verified in my mind. I think it's unreasonable to expect newspaper articles and things about even notable algorithms--I google the extremely notable heapsort and the source quality is not obviously better than for FNV. Gruntler (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out here. How is FNV any more reliably sourced and notable than MurmurHash? Phil Spectre (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FNV hash in google scholar [12] gives 105 articles. They are relevant. I see peer-reviewed articles, conference proceedings, lecture notes, etc indicating this algorithm's usage. Murmurhash in google scholar [13] gets three hits. Or compare searching Murmurhash on the .edu domain [14] versus FNV hash on the .edu domain [15], the sources are quite obviously better for FNV especially once you click past the first page. Gruntler (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, both hashes have some mentions on Google, but none of these sources have been included in their respective Wikipedia articles. The numbers are ambiguous, with MurmurHash having twice as many .edu references as FNV despite being more recent. Ultimately, if these are reliable sources, they should be added, not talked about here. This way, specific references could be researched and checked for reliability and relevance. Until then, we're only comparing one type of hand-waving against another. Phil Spectre (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not on my internet, the linked searches on site:.edu above returned 1580 for FNV and 584 for Murmurhash. (You're searching "FNV" and not "Fowler-Noll-Vo," right?) Beyond numbers, the quality is just obviously better for FNV. The .edu search for murmurhash quickly tails off into file listings and directories and the first several pages (at least) of the search for FNV consists of presentations, papers, conference proceedings, and such. Gruntler (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought we were using the same Internet! For what it's worth, I get 160 for MurmurHash, and 225 for FNV. As for quality, neither set is much good. For example, even the first page for FNV contains irrelevant links, such as a page about primes that mentions FNV only incidentally.

Noll's claim to fame is his discovery of large primes, not his use of small ones in poorly-distributed hashes. I would not object to FNV being mentioned on his biography page, but it's just not important enough, or reliably sourced, to have such a large, detailed article. For all the links you mention, none of them are used in the article. Since it's really just a restatement of Noll's page, why not just link directly there and cut us out as middlemen? Phil Spectre (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gruntler, I cut the article down to a size that I would be happy with. Do you really think it ought to be bigger? Phil Spectre (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the other sources is that they largely aren't *about* FNV hash, per se. They're of the form "we used the FNV hash to do X in our work on generally unrelated topic Y." To me seeing a bunch of these *does* establish notability but it's not something that can easily be incorporated into the article.

Anyway, I'm ok with something resembling the version you put up. Gruntler (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is my first AfD, I'm fine with it "failing". Arriving at a version of the article that we can all live with is a better result than either deleting it or keeping it in its previous form. I'm wondering if this means we should revive MurmurHash in a shortened form. I'm also wondering how we can end this AfD. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this can show how to end the AfD: Wikipedia:Non-admin closure HumphreyW (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think this qualifies, based on how long it's been listed, the fact that I'm withdrawing it, and the lack of any visible support for deletion. I'm comfortable with performing a non-admin closure, by way of cleaning up my own mess. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy close Problem solved. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Barne II[edit]

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

Duplicate page of George Barne III. George Barne II was father of III and needs own page. Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close AfD – George Barne II has already been redirected to George Barne III.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs) 2009/09/30 15:34:16

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glass America[edit]

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

This article is about a band that does not meet general notability nor specific notability per WP:MUSIC. The band has only one album released on a small label, and there are no sources writing about the band. Searching for sources turns up a lot of hits for a windsheild company instead. References provided in the article are not from reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the band is lucky, this article is just premature. However, they aren't notable now, so they shouldn't have an article yet. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all above. --Bobak (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (NAC) Dr. Meh 00:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty Magazine[edit]

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

Malformed AfD creation. Adding this to the AfD page. No opinion - Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The attempted nominator User:98.248.33.198 stated the following on the article's talk page: PROD contested by creator, but still no third party sources or indication of notability. No opinion on my part. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article refers to a serious magazine which has been in existence nearly thirty years.

The magazine is involved in a landmark hearing in the Court of Appeal which is important for journalism in the United Kingdom. A large number of people concernbed with Prince Radu will be interested in the details of the entities that he is suing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troothagon (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete. It's not immediately obvious if Royalty Magazine is notable in its own right, and the self-admitted tiny circulation doesn't help ist case. Its founder, however, certainly is notable is he gets obituaries in the major newspapers, and yet somehow Bob Houston doesn't have an article. Options could include cleaning up this article, merging it into a Bob Houston article or converting it into an article about the owner, but I think there's enough for some of the stuff to stay in some form. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like this magazine was the subject of an article in the New York Times, and the lawsuit referred to in the article and the death of its editor (Houston) seem to have drawn some coverage as well. Since notability isn't supposed to be temporary, the historical circulation figures are evidence of the magazine's former significance. The article could use some cleanup. TheFeds 22:17, 28 September 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) 23:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep - My userpage makes it clear what I think of "royalty", those excrescences upon the body of humankind; but the publication does have some notoriety, including mentions in books on the Chuck-and-Deedie era. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily closed as delete - single substantial contributor has requested deletion. Note, however, I have also proposed Vizioncore for deletion also. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vizioncore Inc.[edit]

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

Duplicate article created on accident for a company profile. Vizioncore already existed and we can carry that one forward. -David Szostak, Vizioncore Product Marketing Manager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dszostak (talk • contribs) 2009/09/30 20:00:08

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator: a computer software manufacturer headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois and is a wholly owned by Quest Software (NASDAQ: QSFT), an enterprise systems management vendor. In other words, more from the "enterprise management" spam engine. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Cartel (band). MuZemike 02:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will Pugh[edit]

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

Unremarkable musician. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cartel (band) and move the bulk of the content (not much) there. Appears to be notable but should really just redirect to the band's article, unless the person in question joins another band. SMC (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems the way to go. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey wtf he deserves his own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.51.143 (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cartel (band)[edit]

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

~~Unremarkable band. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources.~~ RadioFan (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable, a quick Google search shows third-party sources: [16] (Billboard magazine), [17] (Baltimore Sun), and [18] (MTV's Band in a Bubble). SMC (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —SMC (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - please update the article using these references.--RadioFan (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. While technically falling under G7 for speedy deletion, both the creator and nominator agree that the article isn't ready to be on the mainspace, yet. User:Mikel.forcada, let me know if you wish to keep working on it, and I can always provide you with a deleted copy to work on. MuZemike 02:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meteors Basketball Club[edit]

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

Not seeing how this might meet notability guidelines. Appears to be a series of local amateur teams. The only hits I'm seeing in Google News are unrelated (a high school in Chicago or a child porn case in Australia). Claims of importance and notability are not backed up with 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I give up. Delete it. I don't have time to gather all what seems to be needed to make this article adequate for Wikipedia. However, I find it unfair in comparison to similar articles such as those for the Tolka Rovers, which have been warned in 2008 and are still standing there, warning and all, with basically no third-party references. The Meteors are one of the most important ladies-only basketball club in Ireland and i thought it deserved an article. Maybe I was wrong. But I think that the criteria should be applied homogeneously. --Mikel L. Forcada (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont take it personally. Unfortunately "important" by Wikipedia standards means 3rd party references. All articles are subject to the same rules but since Wikipedia is maintained by volunteers not all articles get attention right away. This one got attention when it was created. Now that you've brought Tolka Rovers to someone's attention, it's been marked for deletion as well. --RadioFan (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No regrets, RadioFan! I'll try to learn from this. The only reliable 3rd party references I added relate to the Irish Superleague team of the Club (one from Basketball Ireland and the other from an independent European basketball page (www.eurobasket.com). There is a link in the Basketball Ireland article to some teams like the Meteors. If that page is going to be kept, perhaps it could add links to the Club's webpages, instead of links to deleted wikipedia articles, so that it is useful to visitors. What do you think? --Mikel L. Forcada (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other wikipedia articles may not be used as references and web pages created by the clubs themselves are not reliable sources either.--RadioFan (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MuZemike 02:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arrivals series[edit]

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

Not notable collection of video shorts. No in-article reliable sources to judge notability, and search results turn up only blog entries. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here is the evidence of notability. Google Insight for search proves that "The arrivals" reaches to Breakout breakout point with several search key terms: [19]--115.186.27.122 (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry, but google analytics aren't considered a "reliable source." Any marketing company can initiate a marketing surge on search engines, which is why reliable sources are explained here: WP:RS. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here. The link provided above (editor, please sign your posts) does not establish anything. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These videos are free and intended to spread knowledge, just like wikipedia, so these can not be considered as advertisement. --115.186.27.122 (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all ads are intended to bring immediate financial gain. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the article wasn't nominated for being spam, it was nominated for not yet being notable. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
- Various References added.
- All Videos links placed.
- Necessary Content description added.
- In Article references inserted.
ALI ASSAD (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it became notable, it could be recreated, but most of the current content would still need to be pruned as advertising material.
~~Many of the incoming links need to be killed regardless of whether it's notable. May I suggest the article creator remove those first, as it's easier for him to revert his own changes.~~ I found this AfD because of the clearly inappropriate link from conspiracy theory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The series is about conspiracy theories and cites numerous references. May I suggest the deletion suggester check these first, as it's easier for him to understand if its appropriate or not.ALI ASSAD (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to be particularly notable in order for it to be appropriate as a #See also. As I question its notability, I can assert that it is not particularly notable with much fear of dispute. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Dispute = No in #See also link Removal.

But Dispute yes here is dear brother, You can never compare and then assertively decide 2 things to be non-related when you haven't even checked one's contents. ALI ASSAD (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is advertisement for non-notable You-Tube videos. "See Also" links to this are being spammed into other non-related articles (ie, further evidence of advertisement-quality of article.) J. Van Meter (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.

There are many many articles about commercial films, why are they not considered as advertisements and non-profitable You-Tube videos are ?
Secondly if you don't even know about the contents of the videos then how are you deciding that they are non-related ? ALI ASSAD (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many commercial films whose articles have been deleted or rejected for not being notable.

There seem to be no references to this video, other than in blogs and in Wikipedia echos. Notability requires external, reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. A John Tuturro comedy about a 19th century theater troupe in New York City has, in spite of your assumptions about the film's title, absolutely nothing to do with an antichrist or alien invasions. (Opinions on Christopher Walken not withstanding.) I stand by my assertion. J. Van Meter (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. OK Sorry! I assumed what the movies title states just like you are assuming a lot of anti-article things without watching the videos, and now I stand by my assertion that your and mine reactions are not different at all brother.ALI ASSAD (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we take this discussion to the articles discussion page ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_arrivals_series ALI ASSAD (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It goes to the question of whether there should be an article, not as to what should be in the article. Questions as to the latter should be on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Origins of the Sri Lankan Civil War. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banning of Tamil language media importation[edit]

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

~~Delete~~, Too small and significant only in relation to a bigger issue to stand on its own as an article. Merge with Origins of the Sri Lankan Civil War article. HumanFrailty (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the tamil civil war article, I suspect this like that Same Sex Marriage article was pushed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into appropriate target article so this content will be contained appropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy of standardization[edit]

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

~~Delete~~, Too small and significant only in relation to a bigger issue to stand on its own as an article. Merge with Origins of the Sri Lankan Civil War article. HumanFrailty (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Any merger can be discussed seperately on the talk page. Sandstein 18:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan state sponsored colonisation schemes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Delete~~, Lacks enough content or notability to stand on its own as an article; Merge into Origins of the Sri Lankan Civil War. HumanFrailty (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources One of the current sources is the US Library of Congress Country Study on Sri Lanka, a fine source. Building local capacities for peace: rethinking conflict and development in Sri Lanka may have been used for the article, but not credited until I added it to further reading. The other two citations come from University Teachers for Human Rights.John Z (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- UTHR is biased against the Sinhalese and the Muslims. They seem to desire a homogenous community in the North with only Tamils (excluding Muslims and Sinhalese). Human rights should include freedom to move anywhere a person desires and settle anywhere they desire. HumanFrailty (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Library of Congress only mentions an incident that was planned but never occured (which the article uses word for word infringing on copyright issues). HumanFrailty (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable subject matter, just as Chinese settlements in Tibet and Israeli settlement are. This seems like a partisan nomination. Chesdovi (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I make a separate article for the Tamil "colonization" of the Sinhala homeland? They constitute a major part of Kandy which is traditionally Sinhala homeland. Also, there's a significant number of Tamils who have settled in Colombo and other areas of the Western and Southern provinces. HumanFrailty (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You state that “Human rights should include freedom to move anywhere a person desires and settle anywhere they desire.” I feel that this is the case of the migration of Tamils into Sinhalese areas. Therefore, unless the Tamil migration is extraordinary in nature, it does not merit a page. Conversely, there is evidence that movement of the majority Sinhalese into Tamil areas is a government backed settlement scheme in order to alter the ethnic makeup of the island thereby gaining Sinhalese homogeneity and control over the whole island. Chesdovi (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The test is whether this movement of people is a phenomenon, a thing that has attracted sufficient attentions from reliable sources. It could be entirely voluntary, unorganized and independent of any government - we have 3 articles on internal migrations of African Americans in the USA Great Migration (African American), Second Great Migration (African American) and New Great Migration. My guess is there may be enough sources to support this article. There may not be enough for movement of Tamils into Sinhalese areas, but if there are sources on it, there's no reason not to have an article on it.John Z (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there is nothing to indicate a motive of demographic change. Settlements were encouraged under the development of the Mahaweli River for members of all the ethnic groups in Sri Lanka: Sinhalese, Muslims and Tamils. The Sinhalese constituted the majority for the simple fact that there are more of them in the country! These settlers migrated for the economic benefits that dawned with development.

It's funny that the Sinhalese are accused of racism when they've historically allowed other ethnicities like the Tamils to settle within there territory while the Tamils have constantly blocked other groups from settlement in their regions and claim discrimination when government facilitates migration.HumanFrailty (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no sources that currently correspond to the title "Sri Lankan state sponsored colonisation schemes". A few documents allude to this using less argumentive terms. This should be incoporated into theOrigins of the Sri Lankan civil war article as there is not enough valid material to constitute a lone article. HumanFrailty (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war. This is good content but it feels too much like NPOV. --WngLdr34 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This a valid article that needs expansion not deletion. Taprobanus (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing to expand on..the article is already straining for evidence of "colonisation schemes". Trincomalee's Sinhalese population still only constitutes 3/10 of the population.. 7/10 is Tamil. HumanFrailty (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli settlers only constitute 1/10 of the West Bank.... Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has used the excuse "there's isn't an article on X so why should there be an article on Y" on a number of times. If he/she believes there should be articles on Tamils living in Colombo/Kandy or on any instances where Tamils have blocked others from settling, then let him/her start them, not delete this article. But please remember that the Tamils in Colombo/Kandy bought their homes from their rightful owners at market/above market prices using their own resources. The colonists in Trincomalee/Vanni were simply handed over the land that had been confiscated by the Government from their rightful owners without any compensation. FYI the Sinhalese population of Trincomalee district rose from 5% to 30% in the space of 50 years. The Tamil population of Colombo district increased from 10% to 11% between 1981 and 2001, whilst the Tamil population of Kandy district fell from 5% to 4% during the same period. If the article is too short, expand it. If the article isn't NPOV, change it. Don't delete it - the subject is worthy of an article.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even more interesting are the demographic changes in the North. The Muslim population in Mannar went from 30% to 0% in the span of 10 years while the 10% or so in the rest of the Northern Province also declined to about 0%. Were they compensated besides the restrictions on how much money they can take when they were forced out? HumanFrailty (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there's an article on this: Expulsion of Muslims from the Northern province by LTTE. Would you care to nominate this for deletion because "Wikipedia is not the Muslims grieveances encyclopedia"?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly because I don't see where else it can go. It's also supported by reliable sources and indicates undeniably notable acts. Creating settlements where there are no settlements (uncleared jungle) and small-scale migration (in relation to the whole island) doesn't seem notable enough to warrant an article. HumanFrailty (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources you used to improve the article are heavily biased.. Tamil Sangam, UTHR, an article by the LTTE secretary, etc.. |||||| While, Relief International, The Hindu (in the Muslim article) - not so much. HumanFrailty (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May not be the best title. Other search terms like "sinhalese settlement" give some more hits that look relevant, e.g. [20] or [21], which says the settlement policy is well documented, along with many false positives. But under any title, it seems to be a notable and sufficiently studied phenomenon.John Z (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator, no deletes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vatteluttu[edit]

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

*Delete This is a recreation of the Grantha script article in a biased manner; Grantha is the widely accepted neutral name for the script - vatteluttu being a local name for it; there doesn't seem to be any difference between the two in form. The image included in the Vatteluttu page makes no mention of Vatteluttu - rather it mentions the Grantha script (also known as Pallava). HumanFrailty (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not understand the allegation of bias here at all. David Diringer's The Alphabet: A Key to the History of Mankind treats the two scripts as closely related but separate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Grantha and Vattelutthu are not the same script. --Arvind (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Given HumanFrailty's standard nominations of anything Tamil (some of which are valid noms), I find it hard to consider anything more than a disruptive nomination. Read the numerous gbooks comparisons on the origins and relationship between the two scripts. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, this nom. HumanFrailty (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Big Bird seems to have the most fleshed-out policy based argument that addresses the sources found. NW (Talk) 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hood 2 Hood: The Blockumentary[edit]

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

Lack of notability all the way around. The film was made by a non-notable director, distributed by a non-notable company and has no notable stars. A lack of media coverage by reliable sources. No gnews hits came back for it. One entry in the article from a weekly newspaper seems to be about it and that article isn't about this film alone, it's about films on a particular subject. Most ghits come back with either places to buy it, non-reliable sources or Wikipedia/mirrors. Article doesn't really even assert notability, aside from the fact that the film exists and was mentioned in an article. All in all, this film appears to fail WP:FILMNOT. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Theres more media appearances here. Click on "media". Portillo (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the New York Times "coverage" isn't an article at all. It is the blurb for the movie guide, just telling us about the movie so we know the subject. Not even a review of the movie, let alone an article about it. I already mentioned the other "media coverage", which was the weekly newspaper. The third "coverage", the Las Vegas Sun, is very misleading. It was actually an article about a man who appearedin the film and was arrested because he was seen in it. The quotes shown in the link you provided aren't actually those of the author, they are quotes he got from the film itself. You can read the actual article here: [22]. So, in summary.....you have a weekly paper talking about it, the NYT not writing an article about it and the Las Vegas Sun talking about an oddity connected with the movie and the movies website misrepresenting quotes of themselves as quotes of the author. Sorry, but that's not significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Tell me this then, is it against Wikipedia rules to offer a Wiki Admin a bribe to keep an article? Portillo (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? BTW, the criteria at WP:NOTFILM would specifically exclude the NYT reference as coverage: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides".Niteshift36 (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I see it, the only notabe thing about this film is the fact that it's available for purchase. Skarebo (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was planning on nominating this for deletion myself for the exact same reason. JBsupreme (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive coverage from the East Bay Express here, and the DVD was used by police as evidence according to Google News and the Las Vegas Sun article.--Michig (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We talked about the East Bay Express, which is a weekly paper. The article wasn't solely about this film. The Sun article is an oddity connected to the film, not about the film itself. Those quotes in the article are mostly from the movie promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether the East Bay Express article is solely about the film - it gives extensive (well beyond what is regarded as "significant") coverage of the film. It also doesn't make any difference that the paper is weekly.--Michig (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does matter if the article is mainly about the film or not. An article about the film and an article about those types of films that talks abut this one, among others, is very different. And yes, the size/status of the paper is relevant. Have you actually read WP:NOTFILM? "This guideline includes published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism excluding the following" This was not a full length feature article about the film, nor is a newspaper that has a total circulation of 76,000 for an entire week going to qualify as a "large circulation" paper. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is whether the East Bay Express fulfils the criteria of WP:RS and whether that article provides significant coverage of the film in question. The fact that the article also discusses the wider topic of that type of film is not a reason to discount this as a source. See WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material".--Michig (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I defer to the criteria for WP:NOTFILM. It was obviously written that way for a reason. A paper of 76K for a week is not large circulation. Doesn't it stick out to you that after 4 years of being out, the only thing you can dig up is that and some borderline "coverage" in the LV Sun (which only happened because of the arrest)? That indicates a real lack of notability to me. The fact that you have to search so hard for debateable sources seems to indicate that the film isn't really that notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A single editer believing that 76k per week circulation of a source somehow "disqualifies" that source does not disqualify it. A source could have only 7k per week circulation and assuming the source is independent of the topic and have editorial control over its content, it would still be a reliable source. That a user had "to search so hard" for sources has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and I didn't have to search very hard at all to find that. I don't know where that idea came from. Also the emphasis on entire week is odd - it's a weekly paper, so the circulation for an entire week is the same as the circulation for a single issue.--Michig (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you didn't have to search hard to find it, the link is in the article and I mentioned it in the nom. The idea that you searched for somethng already there at least provides me with a good laugh. I'm quoting the guideline and, compared with other circulations, a circulation of 76K per WEEK isn't very big. And no, the circulation of a free paper once a week isn't the same as selling 76k a day. I hope you know better and are just hoping I don't. Apparently I'm not the only one as another experienced editor mentioned that he was considering nominating the article himself. But I'm happy to see Oakshade is back to contest every word I say in an AfD. But he's wrong.....coincidental mention in the Sun isn't adequate coverage. Had that same man been seen in "Jackass" instead of this "film", the Sun would have never mentioned this non-notable work in its pages. You can say "prove that" all you want, but you and I both know it is true. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said yourself above that this is a weekly paper - that means one issue per week. So however many the circulation is per week is the SAME as the circulation per issue. Do you not understand that?--Michig (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide arguments that have nothing to do with WP:NOTABILITY or any of our guidelines ("you have to search so hard for debateable sources"???), you're going to be called on them.--Oakshade (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand what weekly means. What you apparently fail to understand is that you can't extrapolate that to meaning that it would be equal to a daily paper that does 76K per day, every day. Even daily papers have days of the week where their circulation is higher than others. Many daily papers have a higher Sunday circulation than the rest of the week, weekly papers get a one day circulation higher than they would if they were a daily. And actually, according to their website, their weekly press run is only 50,000, not 76,000. That means they print 50K, not that 50k are actually taken by readers. So, in reality, that puts them under 50K in readership. That's not sounding like a "large circulation" paper to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to where anyone in this discussion other than youself has "extrapolated that to meaning that it would be equal to a daily paper that does 76K per day". Nobody has made any such statement, so arguing against it is a little bizarre.--Michig (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now you want a direct quote. Then tell me what you mean by talking about "they only publish one issue". They only print 50K papers a week. That will be less than 50k readers in an entire week. That's not large circulation no matter how you twist it.

Keep - The East Bay Express and Las Vegas Sun articles do provide adequate substantial coverage per [[WP::NOTABILITY]].--Oakshade (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you bother to read WP:NOTFILM. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've bothered to read WP:NOTFILM thank you and it doesn't trump WP:NOTABILITY. It's the opposite. If a topic passes WP:NOTABILITY, it doesn't need to additionally pass some kind of sub-genre category simply by virtue of being related to that category.--Oakshade (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, oddly, a lot of editors do feel that since time and effort in gaining consensus was put into these guidelines that trying to just use GNG to shoehorn in some subject that otherwise can't cut it for notability standards otherwise is really just an end-run. Since both NOTFILM and GNG are guidelines (and not policy), there is little reason to exclude the specific film guidelines in favor of a generic one. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per general notability guidelines that are met by virtue of East Bay Express and Las Vegas Sun articles. Both of the above articles meet WP:N's stated requirements of "Significant coverage" which asks that the "sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content". Both of those articles address the subject in detail and the information is stated explicitly so that WP:OR is not violated. The criteria for WP:RS requires that the sources used are "credible published materials with a reliable publication process". The circulation of a publication does not have any direct correlation with the editorial process and fact checking so we shouldn't discount the East Bay Express due to its sales. The Las Vegas Sun is also a reliable source. Since it has already come up that the Sun's article mentions the film in relation to another event, please note that GNG guidelines specifically state that the subject of the article "need not be the main topic of the source material" in order to qualify as significant coverage. If additional sources exist, they certainly should be used to expand the article further but the above two sources are enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Enigma^msg 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notepad++[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

DELETE. While I can't speak to the rules for inclusion 2 years ago (most comments border on ILIKEIT or ITS USEFUL) I can say that there isn't anything in the way of meaningful or non-trivial coverage of this software application from reliable third party sources. Plus the name is a complete ripoff of Notepad, ouch. JBsupreme (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: One of the most popular Windows editor. I think deleting could make it to Slashdot and Digg, Redit front page. Actually I encourage everyone to do like deletionists do and say delete (without giving any clear reasoning). Let's make a point how absurd mass nomination of software articles is and that this cannibalises Wikipedia. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; but is that what this slew of IRC related AfDs is? I have been scratching my head until i found the discussion on the admin noticeboard here. --Milowent (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lots of google news and books results. Won a sourceforge community choice award for best developer tool [23], was noted by PC Magazine as one of the top 157 gratis software tools. --Karnesky (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per already-demonstrated notability. "ripoff of notepad" is hardly a rationale for deletion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no evidence that consensus of prior AfD has changed. Lots of articles, found in 30 seconds, e.g.: [24], [25], etc. --Milowent (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can say that there isn't anything in the way of meaningful or non-trivial coverage of this software application from reliable third party sources. — Saying it doesn't make it true, though. And as Milowent points out, it's not particularly hard to find them. I turned up Gilmore for example in under 1 minute. It's hard to reconcile how easy this is with the statement in the nomination. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Keep Adequate sources, But apparently there is a view think that looking for sources are irrelevant, and articles can be deleted as unsourced whether there are sources to be found or not. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Brandenburg[edit]

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

Regardless of however much notability being "Miss Hollywood" confers, there is insufficient independent reliably published material from which to write a biography. Kevin (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Muni level beauty pageant winners are not notable. Miami33139 (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all above. --Bobak (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Miss Hollywood" sounds better than "Miss Burlington, Iowa" or "Miss Fort Myers, Florida," but it's basically as notable - Vartanza (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 23:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATunes[edit]

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

Non-notable, no sources. Searches for sources do not reveal anything. atunes has a meaning in Spanish (tuna), so it takes some work to find that news articles are NOT about this software. Miami33139 (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First stable release was last week. Until such time as there is independent coverage of the notability of this software, it fails notability requirements. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully. Note: This Google search is a bit more useful, and shows beta releases back to 2007, so "one week old" is misleading. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Miami33139 -- if you don't know how to search for sources on software, for God's sake don't nom articles just because you can't find anything. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say "one week old" because OliverTwisted did. I did my homework to look for sources. Miami33139 (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep per Milowent's much better job than I did at finding sourcing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources???: 2 minutes reveals: PCWorld, Appscout, cnet-featured freeware, softsea review. And I'm no techie. --Milowent (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs and download directories are not sources. Miami33139 (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe not, but "Editorial Reviews" are. Also, some blogs, like TechCrunch, can indeed be treated as reliable sources in some cases.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree that PC World editorial reviews are evidence of notability. They have more than 8000 downloads with editorial reviews, which mostly consist of 2-3 paragraphs. It's an RS, but it doesn't contribute towards notability for me. This is not like they wrote an article about it. I don't think, outside the software category, that we would accept such reviews as notable either if ShovelWorld.com made 8000 two paragraph reviews of shovels, we would not create 8000 articles about shovels. Miami33139 (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's nice. Would you like to try an argument that's actually based in reality instead of supposition? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That is reality. If every minor review of every minor product was evidence that Wikipedia needed an article on the subject matter, we would have articles for every single restaurant that ever existed, every model of every TV in Consumer Reports, and every flavor of Rice-a-Roni. Three paragraphs by an intern at PC World does not equate to notability. Talk to me when Walt Mossberg reviews aTunes and I will agree that is notable. Miami33139 (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        At first there were "no sources," now the sources are no good? Aahhh, I'm falling into the credibility gap being created here. --Milowent (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Miami33139 I think the types of sources you are talking about are noted at Wikipedia:N#cite_note-5.--Otterathome (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Otter and Miami, I think you two could make beautiful music of deletion together. --Milowent (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Milowent. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I never formally !voted above, but guess i should due to limited number of comments. --Milowent (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. MuZemike 02:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nettalk (IRC client)[edit]

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

DELETE. Ugh! How far does the rabbit hole of non-notable chat clients go on Wikipedia, anyhow? Here lies another one. Zero evidence of non-trivial coverage, yet again. JBsupreme (talk)

Delete and in reply to nominator, the entire subcategory of software has these pockets of cruft. Miami33139 (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a better gsearch is [26], but using it, what I see is a lot of blogs recommending its use but no specific conventional RS. What I dod not know is the extent to which any of the listings there may be considered reliable in the subject field. I hope this group of discussions attracts someone who is actually an expert and can sort this out. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This client is used by a lot of German users, but mostly less experienced users (as it is quite easy to use and has a beginner friendly user interface). Some sources I found: It has been mentioned on irc-junkie.org [27] (the most popular irc news site I know of) and has tons of download links spread over the web and many forum posts etc related to it [28][29] and the irc channel #nettalk on irc.ntalk.de is often quite crowded. So it seems still to be used by many people, but I don't know of any references in printed media though. I still think this might be worth keeping due to the amount of people that seems to be using it. Yarcanox (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By Yarcanox's reasoning. Makes sense. Dream Focus 10:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forum/blog posts do not constitute significant coverage. The IRC junkie link seems to be some sort of community site ("Thanks go to Elmaron for the tip and Mirici for quickly fixing the bug") If there is no proof of many people using this in RS then it should be deleted. Triplestop x3 17:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a bit off topic now, but I want to stress that irc-junkie is not a community site at all. It's solely powered by one single person assembling all important news in the IRC community. Those persons simply got mentioned because one of them made irc-junkie aware that such a bug exists and is so far unfixed and the other one is the developer of the client software who finally fixed it. Some people sometimes giving you hints what could be written about doesn't mean your site is community driven. Yarcanox (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#Nettalk. irc-junkie.org is a reliable source per WP:RS and is one of very few sites dedicated solely to IRC-related news and reviews. If the article is to remain little more than a stub article with a list of features however, it would seem to be more appropriate to simply add any relevant information to the tables in the comparison article and redirect there as we already do for many other clients. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yarcanox. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#Neebly. MuZemike 02:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neebly[edit]

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

DELETE. The epitome of non-notable. We really need to institute a CSD for software which doesn't even make an attempt at establishing notability or reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion This stuff really belongs on some other wiki that doesn't have WP:N and WP:V requirements as strict as Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of record: WP:N is not particularly strict: it is a guideline, not a policy. It is editors which tend interpret it overly strictly, forgetting WP:NOTPAPER, WP:DEADLINE and other equally useful advices. :) --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#Neebly. There is nothing in the current article that can't be covered by adding a few footnotes to some of the existing comparison tables. If the subject is later deemed to be notable enough for a standalone article and sufficient sources indicating notability can be located it can be improved and expanded at that time. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Tothwolf. Not really notable by itself, yet it deserves to be covered somewhere. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Bachelor Girl. MuZemike 02:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Doko[edit]

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

History:
- 03:59, 22 August 2009: created.
- 21:24, 22 September 2009: proposed for deletion as "Non-notable musician".
- 05:36, 1 October 2009: User:Anthony Appleyard obeyed a request to histmerge User:Ussee/Tania Doko to Tania Doko.
Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only ghits I could find were this and this. --Scythre ^Talk _Contribs 20:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bachelor Girl per WP:MUSICBIO. WWGB (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Clearly not represented in Google hits, but she's notable for more than one event/act. Otherwise redirect to Bachelor Girl. Mark Hurd (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MindDecider[edit]

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

Thinly veiled promotional article. Author has an apparent conflict of interest, and seems to be on a campaign of creating related articles that lead to this product through links. Few references, and only one with a link. No reliable sources with independent coverage that I can find. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy as spam This is not thinly veiled promotional, it is using Wikipedia to astroturf. The author of the article points to their "new and novel" software which came out in 2009 with references dating back more than a decade, to 1999 and 1991. The sources are not about the software, but about the management concepts the software tries to use. Miami33139 (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted, the given references have nothing to do with the article's topic and seemed to have been added merely to avoid an "unreferenced" tag. I could not independently locate anything reliable on the topic other than an inordinate amount of press releases and self-published cruft. In full disclosure, I have also recently blocked one of the primary authors of this piece for repeated copyright vios and as a single purpose promotional account (admins check the deleted contributions for some interesting key word mining attempts; i.e. redirecting 'effective tool' to this article). Concur with nominator; this is a simple marketing campaign. Kuru ^talk 12:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not able to find any reliable sources for this article. - MrOllie (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 16:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Focus Lighting[edit]

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

Notability not established. Article was created and repeatedly edited by somone with obvious connections to the company, despite repeated warnings about COI policies. References given typically mention the company only in passing, or are of a press-release/promotional nature, and not to be considered reliable sources. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company appears to have a few awards that are considered important within the industry. Plus, designing the ball dropped at Times Square is a pretty notable achievement in an of itself. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial content, most of the content may be seen as promotional in nature. Netalarmtalk 05:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the company is notable as evidenced by searches such as [30] & [31]. Any problems with the article should be solved via normal editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of homosexuality[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Poorly sourced synthesis. References do not support controversial claims. This will need a few other sets of eyes. *Article has been edited based on comments during this discussion, due to the potential for misattribution. The author of the article expresses their views in the first entry on this discussion. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Article is just started already has enough sources. "Promotion" is a common noun, and "promotion of something" cant be synthesis. Google search for exact phrase with ""marks gives as many results. The article will improve over time. (comment by creater) Mest me n^^ (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, an article about a ban in Morocco doesn't support a claim that "many nations" have problems with "promotion of homosexuality."[32] Also, an about.com blog entry [33] doesn't support the claim that "the media generally supports" the "promotion of homosexuality."Please see WP:RS for more information on what sources are considered acceptable. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting wrong sentences in refs. Go through phrases quoted by me between ref tags. Mest me n^^ (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing a portion of the intro statement, not supported by the in-line citations:[34] and [35]. These were helpful edits. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is article on Homosexual agenda, but article Homosexual propaganda (which i now redirected to current article, i can give refs if somebody demands) which refers to media/public promotion was deleted 4 times, while Homophobic propaganda article is thriving. All articles that say about negative side of homosexuality are deleted in wikipedia. Mest me n^^ (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That means the community is functioning properly. Articles should be balanced, they should not lean one way or other. The reason you seem to be experiencing difficulty in finding sources for your controversial claims, is that they fall under the category of being a neologism, as defined here: WP:NEO. If it is "just a term," as you explain below, then it still falls under the category of being a neologism, and thus failing under WP:NOT (dictionary). If you are asserting that it is a notable societal topic, it will need proper sourcing, rather than random occasions in which the phrase, "promotion of homosexuality" has been used. It would need a survey of reliable sources which discuss the phrase "promotion of homosexuality" as a topic. Until that point it is inarguably WP:OR. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Still Delete - There's just no way to write an NPOV article with this title (and even if there was, this article ain't it). And grammatical arguments aside, this is pretty much pure SYNTH at this point. And even if we set those points aside, I don't see what could get put here that isn't dealt with in a more neutral manner elsewhere. Even with the update, this article still suffers from NPOV and NOR issues. Terms like "opponents of the promotion of homosexuality..." shouldn't be tossed around liberally, as not everyone is going to think the same way. And my original point remains: the title is still not neutral, and the material here is already present in a better form elsewhere --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is quite notable with nations banning it, making the article NPOV is upto wikipedia editors. Mest me n^^ (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the fact that nations have banned it is dealt with in Societal attitudes toward homosexuality as well as Gay rights counter-movement. The title here simply isn't neutral. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept suggested in the title of the article is not even defined. What is "promotion of homosexuality", exactly? Is that some kind of gay concert tour or series of commercials? --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing which is banned by a nation must be a thing that is defined. Promotion is a common noun, promotion of something must be questioned only for notability. Mest me n^^ (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's called circular logic. Regardless of whether the 3 countries in question defined it, you have seemingly failed to do so, with any support from reliable sources. I would support the Redirect to Societal attitudes toward homosexuality, as suggested by ttonyb. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could not understand the circular logic. Not all wikipedia articles have definition as first sentence, see example George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies Mest me n^^ (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't envision a lead sentence for this article that would meet WP:NOR. Certainly "Promotion of homosexuality is generally carried out in media, public places" is unsupported by the sources. Similar inflammatory phrases such as Homosexual recruitment and Homophobia have Wikipedia articles that treat them first as phrases, which is a good idea for both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. But the sources used here for the same purpose are too weak. I could be convinced otherwise if better sources were found or if a different scope for the article were chosen. Melchoir (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect – to Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. ttonyb (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion is actually carried out by proponents, that may or may not be opposed by the society. Mest me n^^ (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precision with words is important. "Society" is a vague word. How do you prove that "society" approves or disapproves of anything? I think what you might mean to say is more along the lines of "factions of society," "groups who disagree" or even just "opponents." --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Promotion of homosexuality is generally carried out in media, public places etc." LOL. Apparently this phrase exists, but seems best addressed in context of Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. Despite the fact that I have seen alleged gay people in public places, they have never tried to convert me with their secret powers. Note, there is also no article on Promotion of christianity, even though I have seen missionaries in public places, and they HAVE tried to convert me with their secret powers. There is an article on Persecution of Christians, so the fact that Homophobia exists is no surprise. --Milowent (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Crappy article, but I can see where the topic would work as something called Legislation against "promotion of homosexuality". Can you get any more POV than the opening sentence? ("Promotion of homosexuality is generally carried out in media, public places, etc."). Still, the author has demonstrated that there are other people in the world who seem to share that point of view, that homosexuals are working to promote their wicked lifestyle in the liberal media and in public places where freedom of speech is tolerated. Please note that I would feel the same way if someone had presented this with the title "Homophobic legislation" and started with the sentence "Oppression of homosexuality is generally carried out by extremist groups and religious zealots". We see a lot of that type of article as well (this one currently being debated [36]). As difficult as it may be to write in a neutral, stick-to-the-facts form, that's how some subjects have to be approached. Mandsford (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there were a "legislation against promotion of homosexuality" article, then we might keep it. But that's not what this article is. If this article is rewritten as such, that's another issue, but I see no reason to keep a POV article with a poorly-defined topic just in the hope that a biased editor will bow to our wishes and clean up his own POV work. If people think the article can be cleaned up with some work, then userfy it until it is cleaned up; the point is that an article in this condition should not be in mainspace. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ridiculously broad title. What's next, "Promotion of heterosexuality"? "Promotion of vegetarianism"? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You forgot the Promotion of Wikipedia. ttonyb (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Poorly veiled attack page. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as Section 28 banned "promotion of homosexuality" it would seem that there's a possibility that a reasonable article could be created -- but should that article be "Opposition to promotion of homosexuality" instead? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so as "promotion of homosexuality" is a loaded phrase.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is widely used 520k google hits, and I am open to any other phrase you suggest. And the content doesn't fall under LGBT rights opposition. Similarly soliciting in public places is banned in many countries though prostitution is not. Not just UK section 28(which states - shall not intentionally "promote homosexuality" ), which lasted for 10 years though hardly implemented, now in 2009 promotion got banned in Lithuania, this law emphasizes the promotion towards children. Mest me n^^ (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One section in Societal attitudes toward homosexuality listing current and proposed state or country bans (all 3 of them) would be more than sufficient, while avoiding any charges of bias. At a future time when the expression has been defined better, or there are more sources to support the concept, it could break away from the main article. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait for more inputs. Article is definitely not offensive, it is only counter view. Mest me n^^ (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether or not the article is offensive, but whether it's neutral. (Well, at least one of the questions; more issues have been listed by others). And simply put, it isn't. The underlying topic can be covered in a NPOV manner, and in fact is covered already in several other articles. There's no need for a redundant non-neutral article on a loaded phrase. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, although I hesitate to question the logic of the esteemed Sarek of Vulcan... if the article has not been distinguished as anything other than a Neologism, it would not seem logical to create an article with the title "Opposition to promotion of homosexuality," as that would confer notability on the opposition to something we have said has not been discussed enough to be verified. Live long, and prosper. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to author's sandbox, speedily Seriously, whoever came up with this needs to do his/her homework. This has no place in mainspace. It might be a good idea to define exactly what this article is supposed to be about. What, on earth, praytell, enlighten me, is "Promotion of homosexuality"? As long as this thing has no definition, no intro, no meaning, and no context it needs to be removed from the public's view. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list of seealsos included says it all, as far as the creator's POV is concerned: "homosexual agenda"? This article obviously was created solely to push a POV. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although a crappy article at present, there is no good reason to delete. If we deleted all the crappy articles on the project, it would be a poorer place. Reccomend that it be improved and better sourced.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Homosexual recruitment. Yes, I know WP:LICENSE, but none of this material should be merged anywhere, and that article is the best I could find as a target for the phrase. The legal matters are already treated at LGBT rights by country or territory, and Societal attitudes toward homosexuality covers attitudes of the populace at large. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean about WP:LICENSE? Olaf Davis (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter for my argument, but performing a merge and delete would break the chain of attribution and be a violation of that legal stuff under the edit window. Any such argument would be rightfully ignored by the closing administrator. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see what you mean. I was originally confused because I thought you were saying that WP:LICENSE advised against 'delete and redirect' even without the merge part, but obviously you weren't. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have expanded to include: Gay pride marches are considered as promotion of homosexuality by the opposers with a slogan of "stop the promotion of homosexuality"^[1] which is as recent as July 2009. Mest me n^^ (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding to include how homosexuality is promoted in schools, or alleged as such. I need more time to expand the article. Mest me n^^ (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone is misunderstanding the word "promotion". Your edits turn this thing more and more into a blatant attack-page with a vey obvious POV-pushing misnomer. No-one is "promoting" homosexuality anywhere in the world. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including schools may look like attack, but definitely i dont intend to. But those are notable things that not to be missed in wikipedia, or feel free to edit the article to remove offensives. See Promotion (marketing) and Promotion (rank), all ref's are referring to former. Mest me n^^ (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To aid the author, and to keep that original intro sentence from appearing on any Google searches, I have removed the most obvious POV pushing verbage in favor of something more objective, while the notability of the article is further considered. At least now it's defined, if vaguely. And gee, wouldn't this be a great section in Societal attitudes toward homosexuality... --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to merging, or even renaming to "Oppostion to promotion of homosexuality" as suggested above, consensus is the best choice. Article is indeed notable, i still think the article qualifies to be standalone article. As for definition, I will try to improve by tomorrow. Mest me n^^ (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to Sarek of Vulcan above regarding this proposed title. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the rewrite. As with many issues (gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc.), it can be difficult to write dispassionately about a subject, but it has to be done in Wikipedialand. Mandsford (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the original was a WP:NPOV mess, but the changes since could make it into a real stub. A redirect or merge may be more appropriate. If kept, it would have to be semi-protected to avoid vandalism or trolling. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent subtle rewrite by OliverTwisted, which created an NPOV version of the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The mitigated language might help NPOV but the article still fails NOR. Not all opponents of gay rights think the same! The first sentence speaks of "opponents of gay rights", but it is extrapolating from the words of the Lithuanian parliament and the American College of Pediatricians. The second sentence says that "opposing groups" use a certain slogan, which is taken from a single news story that refers to "a small, peaceful group of National Front protesters". In order to make such broad claims, the article would need reliable secondary sources that make the same broad claims. Melchoir (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Nothing has fundamentally changed, except the ability of the media to quote Wikipedia on the following sentence: "Promotion of homosexuality is generally carried out in media, public places, schools, etc. This is opposed by many nations." Despite the fact that I qualified the statement, and attempted a rudimentary definition based on the author's arguments, none of these sources could be said to attribute credence to the concept of "promotion of homosexuality," just by using a particular turn of phrase. Realistically, this is nothing more than a poorly sourced neologism, or perhaps protologism. For a refresher, this is what WP:NEO reminds us:
...To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. ...Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

As for NEO, the current phrase is not a "term" as such. It does not "imply" anything, but the literal meaning. Just like phrase Societal attitudes toward homosexuality, which does not define in lead, means literal meaning and nothing more. Mest me n^^ (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent analogy. Societal attitudes towards homosexuality is covered extensively in reliable sources, not only by co-incidental wording, but also by literal attribution: 1) [37] 2)[38]. Also, the "I found this on that article" argument doesn't normally hold water on the AfD boards, please see: WP:OTHERSTUFF. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the author/creator does not seem to understand is that simply because a certain phrase (which, in addition is completely POV) has been used or cited somewhere does not warrant an article on wikipedia. It is still undefined, incomprehensible, simply "thrown at the audience," and with hardly any context.
I haven't seen any of the promised improvements other than some desperate attempts to "hunt down" the phrase in various dubious sources. This does not constitute a suitable definition. I was initially under the impression that the article might be salvage-able in some way, but having patiently observed this AfD over the past days, I now give my voice for a Strong Delete. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is mostly off-topic. There is negligible detail about the promotion of homosexuality, it is more or less assumed. What there is consists mostly about countries' opposition to the promotion of homosexuality. If there was merit in any of that, it would be citing verifiable and accurate instances of promotion that lead to the laws preventing its promotion. In that it fails to do so (apart from scouring dubious websites for 'news') the whole article represents WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Either delete or merge with either the LGBT rights opposition or Homosexual agenda or anti-LGBT bias. Mish (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh[edit]

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

The article appears to fail WP:BLP1E in that the subject is notable for only one event that enjoyed a brief moment of media coverage - his legal case. The facts of his being a professor and the past head of a small organization (that does not, itself, warrant a Wikipedia article) do not contribute to his notability. Geoff NoNick (talk) 00:40, 24 September 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 03:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on basis of WP:BLP1E. Comments from Canadians would be helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep (and cleanup). Career as professor is only moderately interesting, but constitutional claim is extremely interesting and notable. I suppose an article on the case itself might include only a section on Chainnigh (with a redirect), but figure in notable supreme court case reaches notability. LotLE×talk 01:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of importance as an academic or otherwise. legal claim sounds a little absurd-- that's my opinion--and apparently that of the sources as well. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the only real claim for notability is the legal case, and I see no indication that it has been consequential for having failed. Sometimes when a case like this fails, it has ramifications for other legal or social/political issues, but in this instance I think it ended up being no more than a curiosity -- as demonstrated by the fact that the only coverage was for the case itself, not for any subsequent fallout. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Boldly redirected to Ball boy. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ball boy rules[edit]

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

Prod tag removed by author. The article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and is primarily original research without any inline citations (one of the citations refers to the author's experience as a ball boy, and the other two aren't actually inline citations despite their appearance). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human-readable[edit]

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

The article title is about a type of 'readable' which is an adjective. In accordance with both WP:MOS and particularly the WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy the wikipedia doesn't have adjectives. The article has never had any references, and it does not seem that after 5 years it will ever do so. The article meaning is obvious from its title and the wikipedia does not seem to gain from having it, it is simply a dictionary definition. If it was to be kept it would need to be moving to human readability, but given the policy violations, clumsiness of the appropriate title, and the apparent pointlessness of the article, I'm requesting deletion. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - article fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If suitable sources can be found, the article would be notable and should be kept. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has been improved. It is now both notable and encylopedic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the last bit; just because it's notable doesn't make it encyclopedic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose it could be merged, along with machine readable to readability- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, and that points the way. There are sources that discuss human and machine readability. This one does, for example. It even has that very name as part of its title. ☺ (Albeit that it isn't a source for the entirety of the subject.)
  This is pretty much the same situation as we had with Off-line (AfD discussion) and Online (AfD discussion) at AFD some years ago. A merger, of two sides of the same coin into one article for both, seems indicated here as it was there. Uncle G (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with machine-readable. Ridiculous to delete an article because of word form. Yes, nouns are the best title, but if it should be the case for some particular concept that the best title is an adjective, so what? that;'s the sort of problem we have IAR for. it is in any case easy enough to adjust the title to human-readable formatting, or something of the sort. Readability is a much more general multi-meaning term, and not a good choice for merging. As for sources, it's just a matter of looking.--looking at leaser as far as the gBooks and Gscholar results right up there in the top line below the title and above the nomination. Human-readable, in every sense. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the policy is telling us something here; adjectives like longer, higher, faster don't make very good articles; and adjectives are proscribed by policy; it cannot be kept where it is.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed they usually do not. I agree with the policy on this. But IAR supersedes all other policies--it's very purpose is to deal with exceptional cases, so it could be kept at the title if there is consensus to do so. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to me that the article conveys more than just a dictionary definition, albeit it's admittedly not the greatest prose, nor a complete discussion of the subject matter. We have many articles that are entitled by adjectives. If it's really awkward to use a title like that, it's easy to formulate a representative 'human-readable' phrase. The article can certainly be improved. Poor language and lack of effort over time is no reason to delete it either. I would not even merge it, but it would be good to contrast each article briefly against the counterpart. The article is referenced by many others and deletion seems rather absurd. Kbrose (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of an article title that is an adjective?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Lame

Keep The topic is obviously notable and the fussing over grammar is no reason to bring the article to AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 04:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Non-trivial coverage (e.g. Yalm magazine article and The Apps review) exists and thus makes all delete !votes void that claimed non such exists and thus deletion is needed. Only one editor took those sources into account and still !voted delete while the other delete !votes have not adressed those sources at all in their reasoning (one even took the sources into account but still argued it's not a notable subject despite non-trivial, third-party coverage). As such, the keep !votes are more convincing in this case although the article needs to integrate aforementioned coverage as footnotes to allow better access. Regards So Why 12:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WeeChat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted a year ago because it was not-notable and had no reliable sources showing notability. It has been recreated, is still not notable, and still contains only self-published sources. Speedy delete as recreated material was declined. Miami33139 (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request administrator undelete previous version for public comparison (am posting request to WP:UND). ^Bongo_matic 02:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No matter how much expansion may have been done there is no significant coverage in independent sources, cited or not--period. ^Bongo_matic 02:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another IRC client article that fails WP:N by not having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (The cited sources are just websites servicing the software, and don't constitute either "significant", "reliable" or "independent".) IRC Clients are not inherently notable and Wikipedia should not be a directory of every IRC client ever created - just the extraodinary ones. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stated by several above, notability / sourcing doesn't seem to be there. Mentions of updates, patches, etc are all that I can find. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4/Delete Recreation of properly deleted material, which still has not gained any notability. Or, in other words, yet another "look at this piece of software! It's bundled among a million other executables in a common operating system!" article. Ray^Talk 03:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom tried to G4, and it was declined. Hence this. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh, in that case, just think of me as a Delete - I added it up top. Ray^Talk 03:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, someone else nominated G4, I brought it to AfD when that was declined. Miami33139 (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Personally I think this meets CSD G4 for speedy deletion. Not sure how or why it was declined. In any case its obviously not notable. Perhaps some liberal WP:SALT should be added. JBsupreme (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the full comparative third-party review at [39] supplemented to some extent by the 2 relevant books listed on gbooks, [40], which assumes it as the standard client, and [41], which includes it in the list of clients. All 3 are right up there in the pre-built search. The review is the key ref, and how the people above can say there are none when that one is right there escapes me. (I would also argue on the basis of apparently very widespread use, but it's unnecessary, given that ref.). DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This link to an article [42] in Yalm magazine written by Thomas Rudolph was already present in the article. The link was broken but it took less than a second to correct it. This article is in German but the guidelines do not restrict articles to English-only sources. This review [43] was also already present in the article. Both of these are independent, 3rd party sources, with Rudolph's article being fairly comprehensive. I'm not sure how it could be claimed "contains only self-published sources" when these were already present in the article when it was nominated for AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published or not, what is the basis for believing that coverage in Yalm magazine or the-apps.org qualifies as significant coverage in reliable sources for notability purposes? Or freesoftwaremagazine for that matter (the mention in the book does not even come close to the "significant coverage" threshold). ^Bongo_matic 08:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about being self published? --Tothwolf (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you? "I'm not sure how it could be claimed 'contains only self-published sources' when these were already present in the article when it was nominated for AfD." I'm saying regardless of the inaccuracy of the charges about the original article, these sources do not demonstrate notability. ^Bongo_matic 23:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yalm magazine meets the requirements of WP:RS and the article in Yalm is comprehensive. With that in mind, and especially with everything else that has been linked here and in the article, I see absolutely no reason why there would be a problem with notability. The original article that was deleted in November 2008 had absolutely no sources and was little more than a list of features. This article is properly sourced and actually contains information of value to the average reader who wants to know something about this subject. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has notable mention in various reliable sources now. Glad some took the time to search for sources, before simply saying delete. Dream Focus 10:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miami, do you or not consider that a RS? DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still feel we should delete as per my argument above. Sources establish a rebuttal resumption of notability under WP:N, they're not the final arbiter of it. They need to be backed up by an assertion of notability - that is, a claim that the subject of the article is in some way of interest and importance to a level deserving encylopaedic coverage - and no such assertion is made in the article. Plainly IRC clients cannot be inherently notable and there's nothing asserting that this piece of software is more notable than IRC clients generally. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument still amounts to WP:JNN. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. So Why 12:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PIRCH[edit]

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

Another non-notable IRC client that has no sources or references. The burden is on the article creator to demonstrate the notability of the subject via references. Wikipedia is not a software directory and should not be used to expose/promote non-notable products. Miami33139 (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the burden is on you, and everyone here at AFD, to look for sources yourself. Otherwise you have no way of knowing, and thus no real grounds for claiming, whether something is notable or not. Uncle G (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't prove a negative is drilled into debate students in high shool. Your lengthy history on Wikipedia may skewer your view of citation necessity but Wikipedia went to a strict sourcing policy many years ago. Thus, debate students also get drilled on the burden of proving their assertions - in this case, for notability. The third sentence is also strict: Wikipedia should not be the biggest, best, primary, and highly search-engine ranked place for information about products. Promoting products, even free ones, is antithetical to Wikipedian ideals. Miami33139 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're raising red herrings. You're required to look for sources yourself, to put deletion policy into action. Policy is amply clear on this: attempts to find sources must have failed. If you don't make the attempt in the first place, you cannot truthfully state that you have failed. No amount of wikilawyering or very silly ad hominems on your part (I'll leave others to clue you in on the depth of the foolishness here.) excuses you this burden. Please put deletion policy into practice properly. AFD is not a big stick for editors to idly sit by themselves and beat other people into doing work with. Uncle G (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 300,000 articles that have no references. Most of these were made before that was added to the suggested guidelines. You should search for references nominating something for deletion. A quick search for Google news for "PIRCH" and "IRC" found plenty of results, including CNN saying it was a "nice Windows client." Took but a few seconds to search. Google books for "PIRCH" and "IRC" and there are 140 results. Dream Focus 01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Delete) - You made that argument on a debate yesterday, UncleG, and if you've answered my rebuttal of it I haven't seen it. We're only able to assess the article as it currently stands, not the article it may possibly be some day if maybe someone finds some sources that maybe exist. Currently, there's nothing in the article that meets WP:N. If someone feels that the article should be kept, they're welcome to improve the article to pass WP:N and then draw to our attention that we may wish to re-consider our position on the basis of the changes. If your claim that we should be looking for additional sources before making an assessment is based on a policy, I'd genuinely appreciate being corrected by having the relevant policy drawn to my attention. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Uncle G is referring to WP:BEFORE, which states that deletion isn't for cleanup. (Ie, if an article can be fixed, it should be, rather than deleted). I typically interpret that as saying that nom's should make at least a cursory effort to find sources. Obviously one can't prove a negative, but some effort should be undertaken. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, it's more than just that. Its policy from practically day one, and standard operating procedure for Wikipedia editors. Uncle G (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks Bfigura for pointing me to that policy! The relevant passage is "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist," which strictly speaking applies to the nominator, but the spirit of which would appear to apply to everyone. I'll take that on board! Now that that's been said, I've made a good faith seach for sources and can find none that assert the subject's notability. So, still, delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you are not doing this, then you are no help, and no use, to Wikipedia and to AFD, because this is what they both require, and are making zero contribution to the process. Doing the legwork onesself has been standard practice since the very first days of the Verifiability policy, and has been part of policy ever since. It's discussed in many places. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#Looking for sources yourself beforehand. Uncle G (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, once it comes to AFD, I'd say the burden is on people who want to keep the article to find sources. At any rate, there are some news stories about PIRCH. I guess someone could flesh out an article with them... but I never liked PIRCH very much personally... and it's unclear to me that they really constitute the level of coverage needed to justify an article. Any PIRCH fans have a few hours to kill? --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the burden is for everyone. Joe Chill (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Chill is correct. The burden is on everyone, to severally and independently look for sources, so that the right conclusion can be reliably reached. And that includes nominators. A no-effort nomination doesn't actually demonstrate lack of notability, since it cannot be tructhfully said that something isn't notable if one hasn't expended the effort to find out. Uncle G (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well it was a lazy nomination, but ultimately, sufficient sources need to be found by someone or the article will get deleted. The nominator committed a faux pas, fine, but I don't think you're seriously suggested we should keep the article just because of that, that would be silly. It's at AFD now, people are looking for sufficient sources and can't find them... it doesn't really matter that it was lazy nomination, people who want this article kept need to find sources. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It very much does matter. This issue has been to RFC before now. We neither want nor need bad nominations. We want good nominations, that are founded in policy, where the nominator has done the necessary legwork and put policy into practice. And the onus for doing legwork is not on "people who want this article kept". That's a self-serving excuse for the lack of effort that you are talking about. The onus is, as stated, on everyone. No-effort rationales and sheep voting do not help either Wikipedia or AFD. People who want either outcome have the burden of looking for sources themselves. It's the only way that a good result, that we can have confidence in being the right one, can be obtained. Uncle G (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't deny it was a bad nomination... I just don't see what continuing to harp on it will accomplish. I looked for sources, but haven't come to a conclusion either way yet on this article. I think we should be debating the quality of the sources, not whether or not it was a good nomination... we agreed right off the bat that it wasn't. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are the sources that Sancho M. found, most of them seem to deal with exploits, vulnerabilities, or updates. I didn't see multiple independent reliable sources that discussed the software in a substantial way. (The closest I found were a review or two of the software, which didn't seem to be the same thing). Bfigura ^(talk) 02:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tangent (I looked at the news sources too, agreed, they were trivial). 90% of reviews are crap for determining notability. 90%, because there are exceptional review sources. If we accepted reviews as evidence of notability then every flavor or Rice-a-Roni in Wal•Mart would have a Wikipedia article. Miami33139 (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FUTON bias
Charalabidis, Alex (1999-12-15). "Windows IRC Clients: Pirch". The Book of IRC: The Ultimate Guide to Internet Relay Chat (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. pp. 36 –&#32, 37. ISBN 1-886411-29-8.
Joe Chill, this is what you and I were talking about yesterday. Please keep that in mind.
Miami33139, this has gone beyond absurd. You are willfully violating so many of Wikipedia's founding principles with these actions that I don't even know where to begin to address it all. It needs to stop right now. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone with an Amazon account can read the two pages (not a chapter!) you are presenting, as well as the table of contents and index which show usage of this client. The author used six different clients for various examples in his book. Does that instantly makes all six of these clients independently notable? Does the amount the author devotes to this specific client make it notable? I say it it helpful to the notability claim, but not any sort of judo that instantly declares this obviously notable. Miami33139 (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - While this is a good reference, I'm not sure that a page or so of mention in a textbook meets the multiple independent source standard. I'll reconsider if more sources are found, of course. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely the standard is higher than merely having sources which assert that it exists and that it's an IRC client? Surely the sources have to assert notability, or discuss it in such depth and quantity as to make it notable through the attention it's been given? - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, If they're notable enough to use as examples in a standard textbook by a responsible publisher, then they are notable. the subject does not have to be "obviously notable," the requirement for it to have a Wikipedia article is merely notable. It would of course help to find additional sources, as it always does. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references are given in this article. It is a sub-stub with a picture. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is this software not "obviously notable" it isn't non-obviously notable either. See that lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications? Yeah, that's right. JBsupreme (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not participate in this discussion. PIRCH is among the most popular IRC clients.I think deleting could make it to Slashdot and Dig, Redit front page. Actually I encourage everyone to do like deletionists do and say delete (without giving any clear reasoning). Let's make a point how absurd mass nomination of software articles is and that this cannibalises Wikipedia. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on discussion to date, its clear nomination was half-assed. There appear to be sources out there. --Milowent (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Last version was released in 1998, so of course the Google sourcing will be iffy these days. As the sources I just linked on the talk page show, PIRCH was frequently listed in published books along with mIrc in lists of Windows irc clients -- sometimes even before it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being listed in lists is not exactly "non-trivial coverage" is it. JBsupreme (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's references out there if you try hard enough to find them; besides, it's an important historical IRC client. SMC (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on Google books results and Google news. Dream Focus 01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do any of the Google books results or Google news hits you refer to amount to "non-trivial coverage"? JBsupreme (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The ones currently used in the article certainly do. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Live- A Carnival of Confusion[edit]

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

WP:NN film. Failed prod at author's objection. Note autobiographical nature of author's username. Toddst1 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can for sources is Facebook. Most likely a hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has no sources and therefore fails WP:N ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). More specifically does not meet any of the criteria at WP:MOVIE. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proven notability besides Facebook, and that is nothing. Unless MQS comes by and saves this, it's a goner. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter failure of WP:V, assuming it's even real. Zero hits outside of facebook and wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to ircII. MuZemike 02:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of ircII scripts[edit]

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

This contested PROD is a list, with only three entries, of scripts for one particular IRC client. It is not independently notable as a concept, and the entries on it have no capability to be independently notable. There is a valid merge target for the content of this article, but someone familiar with that software should do that merge. If the merge is not performed, Wikipedia does not lose anything of value if this content is deleted Miami33139 (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or expand per nom. Well prepared nomintation, best I have seen in the current series of mass-nomintations for chat software. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list of scripts for ircII is not inherently notable and does not enhance or contribute to an understanding of ircII. Further, ircII itself is of dubious notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge with ircII. Clear solution, per WP:BEFORE as an alternative to deletion. Miami, if you don;t know enough to judge how to merge, ask for help at the appropriate workgroup. Don;t bring it here--this is the place to discuss articles that should be deleted. this is a waste of people's time, and adds to the general process overload. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, it should be deleted. ircII should probably be deleted as well, but it is not currently listed. The IP commenting above removed PROD which forced the issue to AfD. He is apparently knowledgeable and capable of merging it, but here we are. Miami33139 (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe all of these are covered in the book I referenced in the BitchX and PIRCH AfDs. I don't really like this article in its current form either and had planned to expand it (with references) and use it to build a larger article about scripts for IRC clients. The subject of IRC scripts is a huge (and quite notable) topic in and of itself. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to the IRC WikiProject's sandbox as Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/Sandbox/List of ircII scripts until we can decide how to expand or merge it. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. There is no reason to give WP:UNDUE weight to another article which is already sorely lacking in the reliable sources department. JBsupreme (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's not what undue weight usually means--undue weight is giving undue importance to a particular instance of a general topic. Combining two weak articles to make a stronger one is, on the other hand, a recommended procedure and a good way of handling problems like this. Not that it necessarily applies here, but my experience in other subject areas is that objections to combining weak articles has sometimes indicated a desire to decrease coverage of an entire broad topic based on notions of intrinsic importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ircII as the content is of potential value for those studying same. -TodWulff 03:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ircII, seems the obvious solution. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my main concern with just blindly merging these into ircII is that these scripts are not strictly ircII scripts. All of these also work with EPIC and many other ircII-like clients. The scripts mentioned in this list and several others are covered in chapter 11 of this book as well:
Charalabidis, Alex (1999-12-15). "Enhancing A Client With Scripts: ircII scripts". The Book of IRC: The Ultimate Guide to Internet Relay Chat (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. pp. 189 –&#32, 191. ISBN 1-886411-29-8.
--Tothwolf (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The lack of significant multiple roles lends greater weight to the delete arguments Kevin (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Carter (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable bit part actor. No references provided that satisfy WP:RS to establish notability. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor with only one major role. Joe Chill (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the criteria under WP:ENT would require him to have multiple significant roles (not established), a large fan following (not apparent) or been particularly prolific within the field (not by a long way). Therefore non-notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this article because I think that he does have multiple significant roles as required by WP:ENT, which are available to view on IMDB, which the article links to. Other editors may wish to add more references or expand the article, but at the moment this is still a good stub, to make people aware of him, and it justifies Wikipedia inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocrowx (talk • contribs) 22:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate— Notability is weak, but it has potential. There are some references, but I'm not going to try to rush them through before AfD runs its course. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Cascone[edit]

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

Non-notable bit-part actor. Zero references that satisfy WP:RS to establish notability. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable per WP:ENT. WP:ENT's most relevant criterion is "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." By the article's own admission his roles are not significant. Also from WP:ENT "has made [..] prolific [..] contributions to a field of entertainment." Not sure what the standard is for "prolific" but I don't think the article as it currently appears satisfies that criterion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Quite unusually for an actor who has been in the business for many years, his roles have remained fairly minor, supporting ones." Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My defence for keeping this article, which I created, is simply that it does satisfy WP:ENT - "has made [..] prolific [..] contributions to a field of entertainment." The full list of his "contributions" are on IMDB, which the article links to, and the article is intended to be a starting point from which other users may wish to expand and add more references. But as the article currently is, it still satisfies inclusion for a Wikipedia entry.
- Comment - (a) we're assessing the article on the article, not on its potential. The most important thing to include in a new article is an assertion of notability. If you're going for the prolific criterion of WP:ENT, something asserting that should appear in the the article. (b) I'd argue that the word "prolific" in WP:ENT must be read in the sense of "notably prolific". His 40-odd appearances over 20 years (roughly two roles a year), most of which are television and none of which are themselves notable, are not particularly prolific compared to say, Martin Sheen's 218 credits (which itself counts his 150-odd West Wing episodes as only a single credit). - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Darone[edit]

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

Non-notable musicioan - fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. Kevin (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, so the article fails WP:N: the topic has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Article will be userfied to Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/Sandbox/Z-Net upon Tothwolf's request. MuZemike 01:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Net[edit]

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

This contested PROD is not notable software. It isn't even stand-alone software, it's a script for mIRC.... Unreferenced, notability not claimed. Wikipedia is not a software directory of things helpful for mIRC. Miami33139 (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a nice, big article, but it's entirely unsourced, which means it fails WP:N: "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the article doesn't have sources cited doesn't mean sources don't exist and that notability doesn't exist. For all i know this Mass AfD of IRC client-related articles going on right now is perfectly reasonable, or perfectly unreasonable. Unless WP:BEFORE is followed at least to some extent, how can one opine intelligently on whether an article should be removed? --Milowent (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - BEFORE is one essay, BURDEN is another. Clearing BURDEN should be step one in writing an article. A number of editors seem interested in adding trivia to these articles, but not take on the effort of showing notability? When contested, it seems most of this software (IRC is just a recent focus area, I previously went through a lot of software MP3 players) doesn't get sourced, even at AfD. But get realistic and look at this article. It's not even a client, it is a script plugin for a client. This software category and sub-categories has gone on way too long without anybody scrubbing it of cruft, trivia, and vanity. Being on Wikipedia drives web traffic and we should absolutely not be the primary source for products that don't get attention elsewhere. Miami33139 (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and look for sources,and then come back here if you don;'t find any after a proper search, including likely printed manuals. You say that you are going through subject areas you recognize that are not an expert in (see your comment at the List of ircII scripts AfD a little above) looking for articles that happen not to have sources. Butthe criterion for deletion here is not "unsourced" but unsourceable". Attempts to use "unsourced" as the criterion have been thoroughly rejected buy the community. Our job is to construct sourced articles. This is attained by sourcing the ones that can be, and deleting the others. It is an abuse of process to use AfD to force sourcing--it should be used to delete the articles you tried properly to source with an appropriate search for sources, and failed to do so. There are certainly enough of them! -- I would never say otherwise. It is wrong to enter an article without looking for sources, and just as wrong to delete one without looking. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC) modified--see below DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did look for sources, in fact, I looked under multiple search terms. Read this article. It's a script plugin for mIRC (which I have open right now, because I don't know enough about ircII doesn't mean I don't know anything about IRC). On the basic google searches (books, scholar, news) there are zero sources about this looking for 'znet' or 'znet irc' or 'znet mirc' not even trivial mentions, which make this the most obviously non-notable thing I've seen today. These things are coming to AfD because there is an IP removing all PRODs from software articles. Sorry to mess up your workload, but that is the process. Miami33139 (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly non-notable and I must admit I am a bit dismayed by DGG's opinion on this one. JBsupreme (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's well reasoned argument. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep high number of sources in online search, e.g. solid DMOZ reference. Recently, the nominator who describes himself as inclusionist mass-suggests IRC/chat related articles while not showing familiarity with the subject. I second DGG, however the urgent problem I see is the repeated pattern in which the AfD-process is used from the nominator, perhaps this isn't what AfD was created for. The pattern looks like this: The nominator suggests article without making any improvements or showing evidence of a research, he then dismisses any work as "not good enough" to a point where it is useless to show a 3rd party refernce to him, typically followed by JoeChill ([44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]) and JBsupreme (who now followed my edit history and nominated Notepad++). I am concerned about the activities of the nominator. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DMOZ is a user-contributed directory. It is not considered a reliable source as it is user-generated content. It does not show notability anymore than a listing in the phone book does. Miami33139 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG, see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kopete related AfD (among many IRC related noms) from same nominator, where a little searching found a slew of sources for consideration. --Milowent (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why is a mIRC mod without news coverage being kept here? I mean really., Clearly not WP:N here, so get rid of it!--WngLdr34 (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Speaking in general, you did not assert that you had looked for sources, and of course it is necessary to look for sources,and come here if you don't find any after a proper search, including likely printed manuals. You say that you are going through subject areas you recognize that are not an expert in (see your comment at the List of ircII scripts AfD a little above) looking for articles that happen not to have sources. Butthe criterion for deletion here is not "unsourced" but unsourceable". Attempts to use "unsourced" as the criterion have been thoroughly rejected buy the community. Our job is to construct sourced articles. This is attained by sourcing the ones that can be, and deleting the others. It is an abuse of process to use AfD to force sourcing--it should be used to delete the articles you tried properly to source with an appropriate search for sources, and failed to do so. There are certainly enough of them! -- I would never say otherwise. It is wrong to enter an article without looking for sources, and just as wrong to delete one without looking.

With respect to this particular article it is very difficult to search, since "z net" occurs in the names for quite a number of things (see the G search at the top--i find prominently [52] a blog associated with Z Communications and an internet service [53]. . Checking in Gbooks, it appears in particular that there are many hits, but they are for "Z-NET" -- an early protocol for networking that does not appear to have a WP article,. but probably should. I am therefore uncertain whether there is anything good among the hits, but there may not be. A tentative weak delete until someone finds something. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having done some checking now myself, I have to agree. I think we can find enough in the way of primary sources to make it verifiable but I'm not finding enough in the way of 3rd party sources (although there may be something in archive.org) at present to establish enough notability for this to be a standalone article. I think some of this material may fit in well with a larger more comprehensive article that covers IRC scripts though. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, don't put words in my mouth that I know nothing on the subject. I do not know the subject of ircII or the article history of ircII, so did not feel comfortable with that merge. I do know something about IRC and mIRC in general. I open mIRC on a daily basis. I've been using IRC since the late 80s, when it was just 'chat' on a shell account and before that there were in-numerable multi-user chats on BBSs and timeshared accounts on services like Tymnet (often hacked) that pre-date the big I Internet. I am old. I've been using this stuff a long time, and I can recognize that most of this chat stuff on Wikipedia is crap. IRC is notable. Articles on hundreds of clients and sub-categories of scripts, bots, and client specific proxies is not.

As respects to searching for sources for this article, since it is a script dependent on mirc, add mirc to your searches to remove chaff. There is nothing, not even the trivial mentions most of these judgment call nominations are hanging on. Don't jump down my throat because my judgment on what is a trivial mentions is different, that's the purpose of the discussion. When milder proposals like PROD get mass-removed, with no work done to address the issue, you end up with mass nominations. Miami33139 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to the IRC WikiProject's sandbox as Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/Sandbox/Z-Net as per my !vote for List of ircII scripts until we can decide how to expand or merge this material. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a comment, mass movement of material to user/wikispace amounts to content forking. I don't oppose some "work needed" moves, but creation of IRCopedia in the Wikiproject sandbox is to be avoided. Miami33139 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no it does not represent forking. Article space and user space are distinct, and we have always permitted improvable articles there. This is just one type of topics among the thousands that are being worked on is userspace. Trying to prevent that implies to me a preconception about what type of topics might be shown to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Lea[edit]

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

Non-notable bit-part actor. Notability is not inherited: an appearance in Titanic in a 3-second non-speaking role is not enough and no references that satisfy WP:RS have been provided. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article lists one role, which does not pass WP:ENT as either "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" or "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "One of Lea's most notable acting roles to date was as Lead Stoker Frederick Barrett in the 1997 blockbuster Titanic which has become the most successful film ever released and in which he was in scenes with Kate Winslet and Leonardo Dicaprio." Joe Chill (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created this article becasue Derek Lea is well known, having appeared in loads of things over many years, and should have a Wikipedia entry. His full credits can be found on the reference links from the page; just because I only mentioned in the article one thing he has been in, doesnt mean that is the only thing he is notable for. I created the article as a starting point, from which others may wish to expand it, as advised by the stub tag at the bottom of the page. As for his role in Titanic, it was speaking, and he had much more than 3 seconds exposure, in several scenes throughout the film; I do not have to list every scene in every film or show that he has been in. Instead, I have made an article to make peple aware of him and which links to other websites where they can find out more, and which has a reliable reference list that other editors could expand, and most importantly the article does pass WP:ENT as "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", because he has, which has evidence as I've just described. So, the article should not be deleted because allthough he may not be the most well known actor in the world, he still meets the criteria for a Wikipedia inclusion (which, as my intention when I created the article was, could make him more well-known). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocrowx (talk • contribs) 21:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual fails WP:ENT. His acting roles have been mainly bit parts such as "Truck Driver #1", "Guard", "Target" and "Paramedic". Most of his roles have been as a stunt performer.[54] None of his roles, including Titanic, have been significant or resulted in significant coverage. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Per above. He does fail WP:ENT. Actually, he hasn't has significant roles in anything really. On another note, Wikipedia is not a place for promoting people, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article itself asserts the non-notability of the subject. Edward321 (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 05:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Catholic Actors/Actresses[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Catholic Actors/Actresses

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

Non-notable intersection. An actor's religion rarely has a significant impact on his work, and exceptions (eg, Mel Gibson) can be (and routinely are) noted in their respective biographies. There's no need to mix the few cases where Catholicism is relevant to an actor's career with the many where it is not. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not convinced there is a need for this list. Location (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:LIST is pretty lenient on lists, provided that there's some potential value in the taxonomy they employ. Catholic Actors is not such a strange intersection that it wouldn't be of value to someone researching, say, a history of Catholocism in western cinema, or somesuch. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But can you give even one example of an actor being influenced in his work by his Catholicism? For directors, that's easy: Martin Scorsese (Mean Streets), Alfred Hitchcock (I Confess), Mel Gibson as director (The Passion of the Christ), Jerzy Kawalerowicz (Mother Joan of the Angels), etc. But actors? And as pointed out below, most every Irish, Spanish, Polish, Filipino, Italian, Mexican actor would have to appear here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial intersection. About 25% of Americans are Roman Catholics. In other Western countries it is more or less. This list could include thousands of people. Also "Catholic" is not defined. Mel Gibson, for instance is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church - the most common meaning of the word. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, though the 25% figure quoted sounds grossly inflated to me. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have an article on the subject, and here's an external source (see page 5). Frank | talk 13:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this list would be too unmanageable, I fear. I mean, how does one define "Catholic". Pretty much every actor in Spain would technically be a "Catholic" and will have been christened in the Catholic church, but very few would actually believe in Catholicism or even God. So how does one define "Catholic"? And furthermore, the list would be too long and to be honest, pretty pointless. So I vote "delete".Tris2000 (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a variety of the reasons cited above (including indiscriminate list, unsourced, trivial intersection and the number of names that could be included), but the main one being that a person's religion generally has nothing whatsoever to do with their occupation. There are a few actors of the Roman Catholic faith who have made reference to their faith in conjunction with their acting (Ray Romano, Mel Gibson, Don Novello, etc.), and that would be similar to, say, a list of Jewish comedians. On the other hand, this is essentially a "List of actors/actresses who happen to be Catholic", which would be more analogous to a "List of Jewish optometrists". Mandsford (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Plus, you can pretty much bet that if you are an actor and you come from Ireland then you are Catholic. (Quentin X (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kensington Tours[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Out of four references, two are for the company itself, one is apparently for a "white pages of travel companies", and the other is from an unreliable blog posing as a reliable source (examiner.com). Google News hits showed a few mentions of the company, none were more than passing mention. tedder (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet notability criteria --Karljoos (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously?? This Wikipedia looks just like many other travel companies. It follows the same reference format – if you delete this you should delete them all 208.97.117.74 (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The listed sources in the article as far as I can tell are neither reliable nor independent. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would appear to fail WP:ORG due to a lack of reliable sources. And furthermore, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a good reason to keep. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les Montgomery[edit]

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

Autobiography (based on the username of the main editor and his blog) and unverifiable claims of notability. Various posts as editor/photographer/producer in the television or NASCAR industry don't account him as being notable and neither do "local Emmy awards" Maashatra (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If they want to provide links to more bodies of information I'd be all for keeping but this article is little more than someone trying to pad Internet Search Engines. --Changer (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - were the article to be appropriately sourced, he may fall within the notability guidelines on the basis of his continuing contribution to NASCAR journalism. Maybe. But at present it's entirely unsourced, so therefore fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and it also has problems under WP:BLP which recommends the immediate removal of all unsourced statements from the biographies of living people, which in this case would require blanking the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 23:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roxbury News[edit]

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

Unremarkable small market news website (see WP:NOTABILITY). Likely interesting to the denizens of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA, but does not register on an international scale. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It satisfies the primary WP:NOTABILITY standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There is no requirement for news companies to be "international" to be notable. --Blargh29 (talk) (original article writer) 15:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quote: The company is best known for producing news videos covering various city council and school board meetings. Clearly does not meet notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Coverage of local meetings has led to stories of wider importance. Also note that the reporter was subpoenaed, along with 5 other news organizations, to testify before a judge about a leak and its sources regarding a secret grand jury investigation. Roxbury's footage has been cited and used by several other publications, including the Central Penn Business Journal and The Philadelphia Inquirer.--Blargh29 (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's a presumption of notability under WP:N ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). However, I believe that presumption is rebutted as the coverage relates only to a non-notable subpoena to which they were one of a very large number of respondents, and being the victim of an entirely non-notable crime. Wikipedia patently can't cover every person or organisation that's ever responded to a subpoena or been burglarised. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But this wasn't just any subpoena. This was a case where a defendant in a corruption case subpoenaed an internet newsman because he published information from a secret grand jury investigation. That's a unique occurrence, and shows the importance and reach (and therefore the notability) of Roxbury News.--Blargh29 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be akin to a WP:BLP1E kind of issue; it can be covered through an article about the case itself. And - having worked eight years in the courts - if being subpoenaed in a case of that level of uniqueness is sufficient to establish notability, I'd be able to create dozens of new pages every day from our local courts alone. Issuing a subpoena to someone doesn't demonstrate them as notable, it merely demonstrates that someone thought they'd have evidence relevant to their case. Defendants can and do subpoena non-notable people all the time, and given the prosecution's obligation to bring forth all relevant evidence in the possession of the prosecution, material subpoenaed by defendants is especially likely to be of a (encylopedically) non-notable or "under the radar" variety. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except that three newspapers across Pennsylvania reported on the the subpoenas and James Roxbury's testimony. So, it's not one of the "under the radar"/non-notability-demonstrating subpoenas. The fact that the subpoena and subsequent testimony were reported shows that Roxbury News is notable.--Blargh29 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Still don't agree with you. The coverage establishes a rebuttable presumption that the case itself may be notable, and that either or both of Roxbury News or James Roxbury may be notable within the context of that case. (I'd rebut it. It's common for newspapers to report on each individual witness within a high profile case - of which there may be hundreds - but that doesn't found an argument for encyclopedic notability of each individual witness.) But even were the case notable, and Roxbury notable within it, that only founds an argument for placing information about them on the page of the case itself - it doesn't found an argument for them meeting the requirements for having a stand-alone page. For further argument, see WP:NME, which is an essay, not policy, but may give you a guideline of where you're going wrong by how far short of the criteria proposed there Roxbury falls. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except that the secondary sources are not only about the grand jury case. There are reliable, secondary articles about the hacking, the robbery, multiple controversies caused by Roxbury News' footage from the Harrisburg Authority. Not to mention that Roxbury's footage has been used as a source for news reports from the Central Penn Business Journal and The Philadelphia Inquirer. All of this adds up to notability, by either the General Notability Guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (media). Also note that every single sentence in Roxbury News is backed with a citation. And not once is Roxbury News itself used as a source.--Blargh29 (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't see how the hacking and burglary are relevant. If an otherwise ordinary citizen happened to be burglarised three times, and all three occasions were reported in the local news, that surely wouldn't entitle them to encyclopaedic coverage. Being the victim of an otherwise unnotable crime can neither establish notability by itself or contribute towards notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        But, these aren't reported in the police blotter, but rather they are given full blown articles--complete with bylines-- from the Patriot News, which is one of the top newspapers in the state. And each of the three articles mention the controversial nature of Roxbury News and its noteworthiness in the community. These articles demonstrate Roxbury News's notability by their very existence.--Blargh29 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I live in Harrisburg, PA and have never heard of them. That said, the sources in the article certainly show notability in my eyes. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Saint[edit]

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

Delete - I have been unable to turn up substantial reliable source coverage of this individual to establish and confirm notability. The majority of the citations in the article are self-citations or peripheral. If substantial reliable sources can be turned up I would be happy to withdraw the nomination, but as it stands right now I just can't find the required sources to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure what link to use for the author page of his book. I didn't want to use all their own material but I wasn't sure if I should link to a Barnes and Noble page about the book. Also with the articles they have written a lot of the articles aren't availble online except for the pdf scans that they have on the authors site. I can change the citation around the article if there is a better way to present it. Mike Saint is like the leading mind when it comes to land use politics. He lectures at ULI all the time. The problem is this industry is so backwards that there aren't a lot of sources online or copies of lectures. It as advanced as other industries where they have entire conferences online. kp2575 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Went through and found citations for just about everything and am in the process of adding more sources based off the various stories written about him in the press. No citations are going to either the company page or his personal page. kp2575 (talk) (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cited sources merely confirm the existence of his company and book without asserting their notability. That leaves him in the position of being a CEO of a non-notable company who's written a non-notable book. He doesn't pass WP:N or [{WP:BIO]]. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Regolith Project[edit]

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

Not finding any coverage in 3rd party sources. References provided dont mention the subject of the article either. Article created by the creator of the project. RadioFan (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not mention the "project." WP is not the place to promote a new idea, however interesting and possibly worthwhile. Get the attention someplace else and then when people are talking about it (in WP:Reliable sources) an article will be written. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The sources cited do not reference the article subject matter or assert its notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Chisholm (journalist)[edit]

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

Delete: nil sources, fails basic criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added some sources, significant coverage here, here and here in particular. That's good enough for WP:N as far as I'm concerned. Gr1st (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - if the article could be appropriately sourced, he'd be notable as a prolific and award-winning journalist. The sources for the relevant claims aren't there yet, though, (even after Gr1st's work above) so at this stage delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have to be prolific or award-winning. He just has to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I don't see where the above three references fall down on that. Gr1st (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG provides guidelines for a presumption of notability. The presumption is rebuttable. In assessing whether the presumption is rebutted it's appropriate to look at secondary policies, including (in this case) WP:CREATIVE. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability, though not by much. Orderinchaos 03:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Scotchbrook[edit]

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

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources means he fails WP:N which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". He also doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE, even if the article was appropriately sourced. Finally, WP:BLP recommends the immediate deletion of all unsourced statements from biographies of living people, which in this case woudl require blanking the article as there are no sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Aaron Wapniak[edit]

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

These two individuals are not independently notable. The only non-trivial mention they seem to receive is this - and that's a press release. (There's also, I suppose, this passing nod.) Their names can be mentioned at Jewish Architectural Heritage Foundation (itself problematic from a notability viewpoint) or at Northern Transylvania Holocaust Memorial Museum (notable, just not a great article) -- and of course they already are. Also worth mentioning is the fact that this is an autobiography (NYArtichoke used to be Awapniak): not in itself fatal, but still, you should be able to have someone else write about you. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete both Very questionable notability, highly promotional, contextual importance not asserted by neutral sources. Dahn (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the Romanian Holocaust Museum has an article, a redirect there might be appropriate. Aside from that, he seems like a nice enough guy but his various philanthropic works are wholly non-notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tend to regard it as a tell-tell sign of lack of notability to find a sentence at the end, "He has also a single patent in another totally unrelated field. " or the equivalent DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MMA HEAT[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate it passes WP:WEB and/or WP:GNG. Also probably a WP:COI issue. --aktsu ^(t / c) 20:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - non-notable website. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the AfD template was missing from the page, I've (hopefully appropriately) added it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article does not meet any of the criteria at WP:WEB and also fails the general notability guidelines at WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of passing WP:WEB. I can't find significant coverage. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 02:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Smith[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

… but on the other hand, xyr professional career over two decades appears to be documented by several sources. Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator is correct about this failing WP:Creative as I don't see anything in the article or the source indicating that this guy has had a major impact on journalism. I also think it fails WP:Notability more generally as the sources used are all routine local news coverage except for one piece from the BBC, which actually looks to be a promo for the guy's show. It is hard to be sure you have checked all the possible sources for this guy as all the searches turn up a lot of references to other people with Wesley Smith in their names, but I am not seeing anything that suggests notability. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No agruments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of what to merge into what can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Catholic music[edit]

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

Tagged as unreferenced since December 2006. Not sure that there's enough material to support an article separate from Contemporary Catholic liturgical music once all the WP:external links are stripped out. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The liturgical article did not exist when I created this article. I do think there are likely differences between the two, but I don't know if I have a set view on this article as it stands now.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I noticed that was the sequence of events. I know there's a paragraph or two that deals specifically with music outside the liturgy, but even if we stripped the rest out, that would still be unreferenced. Maybe a subsection in Contemporary Christian music would be warranted? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That could be fine.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Contemporary Christian music per above convo. Doesn't seem enough to warrant its own article, but a section in CCM would be useful. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 02:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks OK, if not great. Could use some further work, and merging could be a good idea. Content and references are enough to not delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge from Contemporary Catholic liturgical music - A merge seems appropriate to me, but this would be a more appropriate title.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 16:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- both this and Contemporary Catholic liturgical music are acceptable articles as they stand (though as a Protestant I know little of the subject. However, the stub section/cross-refernece at the end might be better deleted and handled by having a "see also" capnote. This might warrnat a name change perhaps Contemporary Catholic non-liturgical music. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That title sounds a bit awkward to me -- I don't think we need to specify non-liturgical, as long as we link prominently to the liturgical article, and maybe provide a paragraph summary. (Oh, I pity the admin who has to make sense of this AfD...)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My rename suggestion is clumsy. CAn you think of a better one? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000). NW (Talk) 23:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death Korps of Krieg[edit]

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

In-world military regiment. No suggestion of notability inside or outside of world. ^Bongo_matic 23:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICTION if that was clear policy but generally per being unable to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to an appropriate section or article related to Warhammer 40,000. ceranthor 14:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no out of universe notability to this fictional army. None of the content has been verified by reliable sources so there's nothing really worth merging. Them From Space 02:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the death corps part of the Imperial Guard page, which already contains this as an entry. It doesn't need to be it's own page, and searches for this should be redirected to the Imperial Guard page. -DoveNJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoveNJ (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire Drug Action Team[edit]

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

Probably one of many of its type in the UK. Snowman (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no indication that this passes WP:ORG. Limited reliable sources are available that I can find. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 02:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ [55]