< 28 September	30 September >

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

The result was Speedy Delete as G3 Vandalism/Hoax. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turtleman[edit]

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

I don't see how this particular superhero character meets the notability guidelines. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I would have even tagged the page for speedy deletion. Clearly not notable. The creator themselves stated in the first sentence, "...ONLY REALLY APPLYS TO STUDENTS AT CABOT JUNIOR HIGH NORH!". Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's something someone made up one day. The article is fundamentally unencyclopedic, does not assert notability, and does not pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as housekeeping; page exists on another project. [1]. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Lee's letter announcing surrender[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Robert E. Lee's letter announcing surrender

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

Delete. Wikipedia is not the right place to post whole documents (Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources). Whole documents should be posted only to Wikisource. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki' to WikiSource, if it's not already there, would (I understand) be an appropriate solution. (I'm not very clear on the Transwiki process or the WikiSource guidelines so I stand to be corrected.) Failing that, delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki done. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wes melcher[edit]

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

In my opinion, this person does not meet the notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not meet WP:N. Salesmen, CEOs, et cetera are not inherently notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - shamelessly promotional; non-notable figure. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are largely promotional and self-serving. Rodhull andemu 23:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The sources are promotional. Nothing there to suggest notability.--Jessica Gordon (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are low quality. MiRroar (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that there are not enough reliable, secondary sources to merit inclusion. NW (Talk) 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Wolven[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable author who also happens to play in a non notable band. The reactions described on the page to the author's stories do not constitute significant coverage; as such this fails WP:AUTHOR. None of the references really constitute reliable sources. A search for actual significant coverage turns up empty. Triplestop x3 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. I've dated people who've been published in Asimov and attended Clarion; they weren't notable (for Wikipedia purposes) either. There are a lot of signs here that Mr Wolven may become notable in the near to medium future, and at that point the article creator is welcome to re-create the article, but as of now a single published short story doesn't meet WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received much acclaim. Positive reviews for 3 stories, and I believe he has published more. We need sources. Luminifer (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Luminifer
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Luminifer
As with Pain Hertz, the article seems to be referenced to self published sources, and non-reliable sources. One of the few which could be a reliable source giving notability merely mentions 'Others (such as Merrie Haskell and Nick Wolven, whose stories are appearing in our next issue) will be authors whose work is completely unknown to me.', hardly a independent review. I would suggest delete. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I first went though all of the references included with the article. None were reliable-sources and all were trivial coverage (one short paragraph or less) of his stories. There was zero coverage of the subject (Nick Wolven). I then checked Cengage, Google Scholar, Books, and News and came up with zero hits across the board. He does not pass anything in either WP:N or WP:PEOPLE and I don't see a case for WP:IGNORE. One good feature is that it's a nicely done article in terms of references. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - it's well-researched articles getting deleted that discourages newcomers (or anyone) from creating articles at all. this is (was, as i'm now retiring because of privacy invasion) why i created so many new articles (over 100) - and almost all of them so far have stayed, and it's a great joy when someone who _actually_ knows about the subject comes along and adds something. Luminifer (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--non-notable musician/author. Having published one story is not enough. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is everyone saying that? He's published four that are listed - 3 have some references to (minor) reviews. He's possibly published more. Luminifer (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, he's published 3. It's not December yet. And I counted "one" because of the one in Asimov. The Magazine of Historical and Speculative Fiction, I wouldn't count that as a very legitimate publication. What was the other one--Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet? Looks nice--but also looks very, very minor. No, a writer has to do a bit more than publish one, or two, or three stories to gain notability. "He's possibly published more"--yes, and it's also possible he won a Nobel Prize for Literature, but until I see some proof of notability (hint: look in print, not just on the internet) I don't accept it on good faith. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you'd been this verbose in your original comment, such as "only published one story in a major outlet", then we'd have saved this exchange... Luminifer (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't realize you were into verbal economy; I apologize. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luminifer, Wikipedia notability is not about what someone does but rather is based on detailed coverage by reliable second parties that are independent of the subject. You can have 50 books published by major houses and still not be notable. Or you can have one book and nail notability because magazines such as Playboy ran large articles about you. The WP system seems strange at first but makes sense as the articles are supposed to be based on reliable second party coverage. If there is no, or very little, coverage then the subject is deemed "not notable" because we don't have a foundation of source material to use for the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely that what you are stating is a valid goal and interpretation of wikipedia policies, but it's not the only interpretation - the polices are not only incredibly vague, but somewhat contradictors ([[WP:MUSIC only requires, for instance, 2 albums released by a semi-important label, and not necessarily much media coverage). Luminifer (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. I see no assertion of notability in this article. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marc Kupper's investigation, I see no evidence of encyclopedic notability, article seems purely promotional in nature. --Stormie (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to PureNRG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ReNRGized[edit]

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

Completing nomination for 98.248.33.198 (talk · contribs), reason given was: PROD removed by creator without improvement. Still fails to meet the criteria for music albums. Note that the article has already been deleted three times for failure to meet criteria. Procedural nomination, I am neutral at the moment. Tim Song (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS - "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to pureNRG per WP:NALBUMS. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 20:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randall V. Mills[edit]

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

I don't see anything that qualifies this English professor for WP:ACADEMIC. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as far as I can see he doesn't satisfy any criterion of WP:N, WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE. Keep per discussion below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject was a well-accomplished and respected folklorist, for whom the University of Oregon's folklore library was named. See http://www.uoregon.edu/~flr/welcome/archives.htm:

The Randall V. Mills Archives of Northwest Folklore, established in 1966, serve as a repository for information collected in Oregon by scholars and students of folklore. Named after former English Professor Randall V. Mills, the Archives have grown to become the largest facility of its kind in the Northwest, and are an important resource for scholars, students, and the general public interested in folklore of the region.

He also assembled an important collection of regional photographs, also at the University of Oregon http://nwda-db.wsulibs.wsu.edu/findaid/ark:/80444/xv90307 :

Randall V. Mills (1907-1952) was an English professor at the University of Oregon, a scholar of the history of transportation in the West, and a folklorist who was interested in proverbs, dialect, songs, superstitions and place names. Collection comprises negatives and prints of photographs of covered bridges and steamship captains in Oregon and railroad locomotives and cars in the western United States.

Beyond that, the subject wrote one of the major works on steamboats in the Pacific Northwest, Sternwheelers up Columbia, ISBN 0803258747. Worldcat shows 259 hits in libraries for the four editions of this book. There are 38 hits in Wikipedia alone for this work. There are 1,800 hits on Google for "Randall Vause Mills". So I think notability is established.Mtsmallwood (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added the information above to the article; now that it's included he passes WP:N and I've changed my vote to Keep accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On his own qualification (at least as indicated in article), I would have voted "delete". However, the fact that University of Oregon named its folklore archives after him provides a very good reason why readers would have an interest in finding out just who this person so honored was. LotLE×talk 02:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep respected and honored specialist. MiRroar (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amr sobhy[edit]

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

Non-notable person; serious conflict of interest by author; no references. Fails WP:VER, WP:N, WP:COI andy (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7, another nn bio. feydey (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete isn't appropriate, the article asserts notability (as a writer and a prominent software developer). He certainly fails WP:N, but it's not a speedy delete candidate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP recommends immediate deletion of unsourced statements in biographies of living people, which in this case would require blanking the article. Further, he fails WP:N, which requires "verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability". That's not present here, as there are no sources. (Were there to be sources, I still don't think the matters asserted by the article are notable.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. - DonCalo (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a strong consensus to keep this article. I agree with the nominator that the overall tone is quite negative; however, it is sufficiently sourced that the well-placed WP:BLP concerns do not require deletion. Still, further editing for tone appears to be warranted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Petrus Kalil[edit]

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

For an article on a living person, this has to be one of the most negative I've ever seen. It has a number of problems: i) For a negative BLP, its sourcing (foreign language) isn't great; ii) it has little biographical information, but rather centers around two negative events; iii) it drags otherwise-not-notable people in by namechecking them in his 'misdeeds'; and iv) an individual close to the subject requests its deletion. I propose we do just that. Daniel (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending investigation. IF the sources support the claims in the article, then the article meets WP:N (significant veriable secondary discussion) and WP:BLP, and should not be deleted merely because someone is upset by the content. However if the sources less than 100% support the content then all unsourced content should immediately be deleted per WP:BLP. (Being foreign language sources I'm not able to put an opinion on whether they support the article or not.) As a potential defamation issue it might be worth notifying an admin so that more speedy steps can be taken to look over the article and take appropriate action. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are 14 references to 12 sources. I guess his lawyer or family is upset, but that is not a reason to delete. Why don't they put their objections on the discussion page, providing reliable sources, so we can try to address those if necessary? - DonCalo (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your keep rationale fails to address any of the four points that I raise in my nomination. Daniel (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I. Foreign language sources are as valid as English ones. The Brazilian newspapers mentioned are major well-respected ones. That you cannot read them do not dismiss them as reliable sources.

II. These two negative events are exactly the two that make him notable. I would love to add more, and will do so when more material will be available.

III. His fellow bicheiros Castor de Andrade, Anísio Abraão David and Capitão Guimarães, all have articles devoted to them, as well as judge Denise Frossard. Prosecutor Antônio Carlos Biscaia has not (yet?), but has one on the Portuguese Wikipedia. He currently is a politician and deputy for the State of Rio de Janeiro. These people seem sufficiently notable to me.

IV. I cannot react on this one because I do not know the individual nor his objections. As I said before he/she is free to react as long as he/she does not remove referenced material and provides reliable sources in his/her contributions. - DonCalo (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I. Not on BLP's they aren't. English sources are always preferable for negative and scandalous content.

English sources are preferable but not necessarily required. People are free to use Google translate for instance. - DonCalo (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

II. Where people are only notable for one or two negative events, WP:BLP1E applies. This article should be about the event(s), not him.

WP:BLP1E is about one event. Here there are at least two, as well as more context. In particular relating to his family which shows an ongoing interest in criminal activity. He was involved in the illegal gambling operation together with his brother and passes it on to his son. Two major events that shocked Rio de Janeiro, plus sufficient evidence of ongoing activity in a very popular but illegal gambling operation are sufficient to dedicate an article to this person. - DonCalo (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

III. Your post conveniently forgot to mention his son or father.

See the answer above. They show the ongoing interest of the family in the game. - DonCalo (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IV. He/she is also free to raise their objections privately with the Foundation, as they have done, and be listened to.

Sure, I guess it concerns this person. He/she has been properly advised how to go about editing an article, but not removing referenced material. - DonCalo (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep article but remove unreferenced material. Ret.Prof (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Same as above. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 20:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid rationale for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reason that DonCalo tries to justify the relevancy of Antonio Kalil being a Wikipedia article is unjustifiable, since all of the articles mentioned for his argument were simply written by him (with a considerable negative bias on Castor, Anisio and Capitao Guimaraes, and positive bias on Denise Frossard). As many people (including myself) often use Wikipedia as a primary source of information, it seems quite an absurd that an anonymous writer who seems to have personal grudges against Mr. Kalil and other bicheiros, be the one writing his biography, solely based on loose articles related to two negative incidents of his 80+ years of life. When DonCalo mentions that he “would love” to add more, it clearly shows his negative intentions towards Antonio Kalil. Could it be that DonCalo is actually Denise Frossard, looking for publicity? Just like she has done with this case when trying to run for governor and had her famous public comment against people with HIV, that for some strange reason “slipped” DonCalos article about her? Also, the events mentioned included more than 80 people altogether, and you don’t see articles about them, like for example Judge Carreira Alvim, who was also arrested on the Operation Hurricane, and is definitely more notable than Antonio Kalil. With that said, I agree that the events might be worth mentioning, but on their own entry and not thrown on someone’s name as being the one responsible for that. Also, despite the fact that some articles have been written by big Brazilian papers, many of the “Facts” presented in this article are based on hearsay, lacking consistent Proof. The simple fact that something was published in the newspaper doesn’t automatically make it become true. Last time I heard, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, and not just a compilation of news clippings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsmarketer (talk • contribs) 02:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I - and I am not Mrs. Frossard - wrote the other articles is not a reason to delete this one. Positive and negative bias? I am sorry, it is not my fault some people break the law and others try to uphold it - with considerable risk for their life. Since this AfD I added more, for instance about the philanthropic activities of the Kalil family. You call that negative intentions? You are free to add an article about judge Carreira Alvim, but the fact that there isn't one, is - again - not a reason to delete this one. Kalil has been convicted, you call that hearsay? The second case is still pending. Newspapers, and certainly major ones as you just admitted, are considered to be reliable sources. None of these newspapers deny the facts as presented here. Slandering other people is bad practice to defend your case. - DonCalo (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While saying that this article should be relevant for Wikipedia your argument was that it is relevant because other people involved in the case also have articles, but you forgot to mention that the only one interested in these articles is you, as you have been the only collaborator. About the bias in the appraisal to Denise Frossard? If your articles are simply based on “relevant” news clippings, it seems quite odd to me that you forgot to mention her most notable quote in the recent years, in front of all the Brazilian congress making wrongful comments against handicapped and HIV+ people (which is also against the law in this country). Once again, just the fact that Antonio Kalil participated in these two events does not mean he is relevant for a biography here. And if you were really interested in writing a Biography and not just a simple compilation of negative news clippings, a little more research should be done.

My argument is not other people involved also have articles. That was response to the one who wanted to delete the article. I think the article is relevant because it concerns somebody who is involved in a illegal but popular game, as well as the impact the people who control that game have on the criminal justice system and politics in Rio de Janeiro. Kalil was one of the most influential gambling operators in the association (the so-called cúpula do bicho) that runs the game and the Rio Carnival. The article is about Kalil, not about Frossard. If you have problems with the Frossard article, you should address it over there. There are now 19 references to 16 different sources, which indicates that sufficient research has been done. - DonCalo (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I mention Frossards article is to show how biased your opinion is. Since this discussion started, you have made several changes to the article of Antonio Kalil. On the otherhand, despite the fact that you have been informed of something negative and quite notable as it was pronounced in the national congress and had a major repercussion, no changes were made. This clearly shows how inclined you are of defamating Mr. Kalil and defending Mrs. Frossard. The statement that Kalil was one of the most influential gambling operators is your personal opinion, and if you did your research right you would know that he never even had a samba school.

Kalil has been convicted and a couple of years later he was released as nothing could be proved against him, and he fact that these newspapers published about his arrest doesn’t mean everything they wrote is true, as much has been of hearsay, just like some of the prior accusations. The fact that they didn’t write anything about this release doesn't mean that it didn't happen either, just that it is not the kind of news that sells papers (thus another point in not being such a relevant person). Also, in the past years, the federal police of Brazil has been made famous for bringing the media to their operations, premeditatedly crucifying the accused right at the moment of arrest, but not even mentioning when some of the accused were found innocent or that nothing was proven against them.

Given the fact that the bicheiros corrupt judges - you admit yourself that the criminal justice system in Brazil is far from perfect - it is not surprising that he was released after three years (he was sentenced to six for forming armed gangs). What you call hearsay, are facts published in the major newspapers in Brazil and are considered reliable sources. What you say about the federal police might be true, but that alone is not a reason to delete the article. - DonCalo (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I am getting lost in your information now. If you say that the Brazilian judicial system is far from perfect, where do you take the credibility of your article? From the fact that the justice (which you just mentioned not working well) accusing him of something? From the fact that some newspapers wrote articles about based on these accusations? Or is on your "credibility" based simply on your personal beliefs? Also, concerning your sources, two of them do not even mention his name. Another one is a personal opinion article of someone that is publicly know to be against Mr. Kalil. Not to mention another that already mentions being hearsay on its title! About the federal police, the fact that only the negative articles are written but nothingelse is written when he is declared innocent seems quite important in this case, especially when this is the only situation where he is mentioned in the press.

Regarding your supposed contribution about the Kalil family Philanthropy, the fact that he donated $40,000 to one single foundation is barely worth mentioning considering that it is only a very small fraction of the family charity, as much greater sums that have been donated, including the maintanance by family funds of a day care center which has been providing free education to kids of 150 underprivileged families every year, for the last 16 years.

If you prefer that I delete that section, that is OK with me. If you have reliable sources that back up your other claim, you are free to add them. - DonCalo (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you OK with deleting something supposedly positive and so angry when mentioning the deletion of something negative?

My point is that that there seems to be two major problems with this article:

1. The article about Antonio Kalil lacks relevance. I’m not saying that the two events were not relevant, and maybe they do deserve an article for themselves (which they don't have), but not as being the Biography of an 80 year old men.

The fact that someone is 80 years old is not a reason to delete an article. I think I have sufficiently proved that the article does not lack relevance. The fact that there are no articles on the two events is also not a reason to delete this article. To the contrary, if there were articles on these events an article on Kalil would even be more necessary to give background on the people involved. It is impossible to do that in an article on the event. - DonCalo (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that he is 80 years old is relevant when you write a "biography" based on two events. If he was indeed a relevant person worthy of a biography in wikipedia, there would be much more written about him, and not simply articles that talk about thesame two events over and over again. Also, many of these articles aren't even about him, and just mention his name in passing, while others dont mention his name at all.

2. Its writing has been extremely biased and offensive on a way that clearly shows that DonCalo has some kind of personal interest on publishing these offenses. Not to mention some of the absurd comments on his article where in one line he mentions that the group “eliminated” 180 people and on the next line he claims they were found responsible for killing 53 people, and on the following line he states that the group was back to the streets due to clemency. As bad as the Brazilian judicial system is, I can’t believe they would release and drop the charges against these “massive murderers” who were responsible for 180 deaths!

Stop accusing me of personal interests. I don't have any, I am just trying to contribute to an encyclopedia. The only one who seems to have a personal interest is you. You start to sound as his lawyer who needs to clean Mr. Kalil's name, now that his trial is approaching. The differences between the amount of people eliminated have to do with the difference between an indictment and a conviction. The reason he was back on the streets again you just explained yourself: there is something fundamentally wrong with the Brazilian criminal justice system. - DonCalo (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your comment as me being a lawyer as a compliment, my degree is in international business, but im glad to be regarded as a good defender of what I believe is right, as a lawyer would. Im sure his lawyers are good enough to defend him and doubt I could be of any help in the case. Also, as much as I love reading from Wikipedia, I doubt it would have any influence on a trial. When you mention that there is a problem about the Brazilian justice, why is it that this problem would be about him getting released, but not of him being arrested in the first place? Also, I am still confused regarding your murder statement: So you are saying he was indicted for 180 people, convicted for 54 of them, and then simply walking out as if nothing happened? That sounds a little strange even for Brazil, doesnt it?

The content is offensive, biased and minimizes the life of a 80 year old man to two events that included other 70 people, and despite the supposed notability of these events, they don’t even have they're own article on wikipedia.

You are repeating yourself, I already answered those issues above. You are free to add facts as long as you can back them with reliable sources. There is no reason to delete this article. - DonCalo (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply standing for what I believe is right. I am sure that if someone insulted your family the same way you are doing to mine, you would also try to take some actions.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsmarketer (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that this user "Sportsmarketer" is nothing more than a sockpuppet of Daniel who proposed the deletion, probably to stack up votes in his favor, given that almost everyone here voted for it to be kept. I suggest that someone file a user check request to see if indeed my suspicions are true. The account is new and has not made any edits, with the exception of this page. Definitely a sockpuppet! Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 14:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Joyson, I havent introduced myself. Not sure what a sockpuppet is, but quite sure im not one. My name is also Antonio Kalil and I am the grandson of the person mentioned in the article. My grandfather currently suffers from Alzheimers sindrome and I doubt he even knows what Wikipedia is and sure enough wouldnt even care of seeing his name here as he has no idea what this is. I myself, though, am a great fan of this encyclopedia, and have used it quite a few times for reading. Didn't really know it was so easy to write on it too, maybe ill try to write it a little bit more now that I have an account of my own. The reason I am asking for the deletion of this article is that the difamation on this article, not only hurts my name, but also my family as a whole. I believe you would understand how agravated someone would get when your family name is being thrown on mud by people who dont even have the decency to identify themselves. Im sorry if I am not really familiar with the whole wikipedia law as I have never written to any entry, but from the articles I have read, this has to be one of the most agresive and biased that I have ever seen. That alone should be enough reasons for this deletion, and it should be even worse when adding the problems with the sources and lack of relevance.

Hi Antonio, you should have introduced yourself earlier. It really would have helped a lot. A sockpuppet is a false online identity used by a person for deceptive purposes. Due to your lack of contributions and the relative newness of your account, i assumed that you were a sockpuppet created by Daniel to stack up votes in his favor. However, Don Calo disagreed with this view and told me that he didn't believe that Daniel would ever do such a thing. Since he knows Daniel better than i do, i agree with him and have retracted my accusation. I must point it out to you that you that this is not how Wikipedia works. An article can be deleted only if the subject is non notable or unsourceable, not for possessing defamatory material. If that's the case, then the defamatory material must be removed or the entire article must be re-written. However, i do not think that it holds true for this article. While i don't consider gambling to be a criminal act, it is against the law in Brazil, and your grandfather has a history of gambling charges and convictions against him. It is a verifiable fact and every article one can find about him online attests to this fact. I appreciate the philanthropic activities conducted by the Khalil family, but such deeds, while commendable, do not change facts. I'm not sure if your grandfather kept his business hidden from his family, but that is the common prevailing truth and wikipedia exists to reflect the existing information. Your grandfather is notable and a search in google brings up many results, and reveals no issue with sources. Therefore, this article does not satisfy the criteria for deletion. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 20:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident Congress (Break Away Faction)[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of general notability. This article is supposed to be about a "faction", whatever that means in this context, and a breakaway movement from what is already a very minor political party in the UK. As an unregistered obscure political movement, I can't see this page having any future on Wikipedia. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be one person who has fallen out with the original small group and is disputing use of their name. If that itself is deemed noteworthy then surely it could be detailed in a section of the original article?--Utinomen (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Dissident Congress has indisputably existed as a legally separate entity from the Populist Party when it was registered as a business in the United Kingdom in 2005. The Populist Party only registered Dissident Congress as one of their party descriptions in 2006 after legislation changed to enable political parties to register party descriptions. The ability of a political party to legally use the name of an already registered business as a party description is best described as a flaw in the legislation. Therefore it is unjustified to say that this Dissident Congress is a breakaway faction from the Populist Party as it has never legally been part of the Populist Party to start with.

Mitcheldean (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not currently have a coherent policy on the notability of political organisations. However this entity, while it may be legally seperate from the Populist Party (which is listed at the List of political parties in the United Kingdom as a minor party, and is completely unknown to myself and most British people interested in politics), is quite obviously enough not notable, with extremely limited mention in external media. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This political party does not have notability yet. The last part of the article proves it. MiRroar (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Player[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Two years ago this software was at AfD and no consensus was the answer. It has not improved in the intervening two years. It isn't notable, doesn't make a claim to be notable. It has no references. There are a handful of external links to reviews, most of which are on user submitted sites or copies of PR. If the list of features was cut, there is no unique information to merge anywhere else. Wikipedia is not a software directory, and Wikipedia is not here to promote products uncovered by mainstream sources. Miami33139 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well-explained nom. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I have nothing more to add, there is no significant coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Clint Eastwood#Relationships and family. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Fisher-Eastwood[edit]

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

NN, child of two celebrities, has had two small roles in films directed or produced by her father. Ckessler (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Delete'~~ Redirect to Clint Eastwood#Relationships and family per Metropolitan90 below. Fails WP:N, which requires "verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability", and WP:ENT, of which the most relevant criterion is "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Her roles are not in multiple notable films, and the roles themselves are not significant. There's a good chance she'll be notable in the future but she's not there yet. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clint Eastwood#Relationships and family per the result in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Eastwood. Francesca is Morgan's half-sister and has a similar filmography of two small roles in movies directed or produced by their father. Neither of them has established independent notability yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90. That seems to be a reasonable compromise, and there is precedent. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Aaronovitch[edit]

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

non-notable actor. Played role of "John Lindsay" in six episodes of coronation street, and other minor TV roles. Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - only a quick bit of research done... but from what I can see, he appears to pass WP:ENTERTAINER... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously a notable actor. Himalayan 21:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First of all, a 6 episode reoccurring role isn't a "minor role", so the nomination is based on flawed premise. Second, there is life for an actor beyond TV - surely playing Captain Ahab in Moby Dick isn't a minor role in anyone's book. Finally and most importantly, the subject has significant coverage is multiple RS such as [2][3][4][5] and many others. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The relevant criterion is from WP:ENT, which is that he has had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." He's certainly been in multiple notable television shows, the only question is whether the roles are themselves significant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm prepared to assume that at least two of them are. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the television roles, there are a number of reviews for stage performances (e.g. - staring as Captain Ahab inCompass Theater's Moby Dick which was covered by several google news sources, including Manchester City Life). While researching sources to verify notability, it appears that his Corrie role satisfies #2 of WP:ENT as well "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 14:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep': Passes WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Editorial actions (move, merge, redirect, etc.) may be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Prisoner in popular culture[edit]

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

Whole page goes against WP:TRIV. Most of the trivia is uncited and no effort has been made to address this issue. magnius (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs referencing, and some trivia could be removed, but The Prisoner is very popular and is referenced widely in popular culture. Deletion is not cleanup. Stephenb (Talk) 21:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Some trivia could be removed", it's all trivia. L0b0t (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Completely won over by Rodhullandemu's considered opinion below. L0b0t (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In film and TV one man's trivia is another man's information. Too much deleting on wikipedia.REVUpminster (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. As Jimbo once said, "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced". (Emphasis added). Merely proposing an article for deletion because it is unsourced is rarely constructive, and a purposive approach to writing an encyclopedia might suggest that attempts should be made to provide sources before doing so. OK, the article's been tagged as such for a while, but not many committed editors can just lay aside all else and concentrate on dealing with that; if it matters that much, why not do a little work yourself? As for the trivia point, this has to be moot. Although in general I reject trivia as being just that, and not encyclopedic, and I've set out my position on this here, it should be recognised that The Prisoner is one of the most influential television drama series ever made, even to the point of being the subject of a Canadian university sociology course, many academic papers (leave it with me), and much other commentary, it is no surprise to me that even now, it still arouses discussion and heated debate some 42 years later. I note from the article as it stands that several notable references are absent, specifically Roy Harper's "McGoohan's Blues"- and if you don't think that's significant, you should discover why. Properly sourced, this article could provide an insight (above and beyond the usual South Park, The Simpsons and Family Guy references) into the pervasive influence this series has had. Remove it, and there is little chance for rescue because it will then be hidden from public view and will depend on the goodwill and assiduousness of committed editors, who may well have other plans. In my own case, I am in the middle of a 7,500 edit project which could take me up to Christmas, but if I need to shelve that in order to save this article, so be it. It may be that "in popular culture" is the red rag to the bull here, and if so I propose renaming the article to "Influence of The Prisoner" to avoid that stigma. Rodhull andemu 23:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while i truly hate most popular culture sections, this is an essential article, even if it were simply merged back into the tv show. the influence on culture needs to be documented, and we might as well start here. i wish i had a better name for it. I am starting to warm to "influence of the prisoner", though. maybe "influence of the TV show The prisoner"?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rodhullandemu's argument above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The TV series has been genuinely widely referenced in various forms of media. I'm not sure about the "in popular culture" title given that the TV series itself is part of popular culture, and RH&E's renaming suggestion above looks a good idea.--Michig (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. How's "Works inspired by The Prisoner" as a possible name? Just a thought. It can put a focus on what the article should include and avoid the truly trival mentions in "popular culture". This discussion, however, may be more appropriate for its talk page. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rodhullandemu, although I think Wolfer68's renaming idea has merit. Rlendog (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into The Prisoner#References to The Prisoner in popular culture. Deletion would be contrary to our editing policy but this material is currently too thin and needs a good pruning. For example, the salutation, be seeing you predates the show by 20+ years and so the examples given require good sourcing to be retained. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect What is here isn't an encyclopedic article at all as it lacks a coherant focus and is instead made up of nothing but trivia. I have no prejudice against recreation if it is rewritten entirely from an editor that willing to put in the work. For now, deletion wouldn't hurt the encyclopedic, but a redirect to a section in the original article may also be appropriate if the section contained sourced material and was kept clean. Them From Space 01:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added 8 sources and some juicy quotes, which hopefully show that the influence of The Prisoner on subsequent TV, music and film is substantial and worth writing about. The suggested rename to "Influence of The Prisoner" or somesuch title might help avoid the "in popular culture" stigma. Fences&Windows 03:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet-run peace movements in the West[edit]

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

First of all, I know that this article was listed on AFD not too long ago. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 24 for an explanation of why it is now being re-listed.

Fundamentally, the problem with this article is that it is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH, not to mention WP:NPOV. For the most part, the sources are not talking about "Soviet-run peace movements in the West", the ostensible subject of the article. Instead, they discuss cases where the Soviet Union is believed to have provided funding and/or exercised undue influence in various Western peace organizations. The 1983 Time article, for instance, specifies that the groups in question "would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source." Other sources simply are not reliable; for instance, one is a book from Regnery Publishing, a far-right publishing house that is best known for the release of fringe literature (e.g. Unlimited Access, which claims that the Clintons hung crack-pipes on the White House Christmas tree). Regnery does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by our verifiability policy.

The fundamental problem with this article can be best expressed with an analogy. It would not be difficult to find reliable sources discussing contributions received by U.S. Congressmen from various industry groups. It would also not be difficult to find reliable sources expressing concern that corporations have too much influence on the U.S. political process. But if someone took all this together and made an article called Corporate-owned Congressmen in the United States, it would be rapidly deleted as an example of improper synthesis and POV-pushing. This is essentially the same thing, and should be deleted for the same reason.

Note that this issue has been discussed on the Eastern European mailing list. Canvassing happened during the last AFD and is likely to happen again. The closer should take this into account. *** Crotalus *** 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well referenced, particularly to the core work: Richard Felix Staar, Foreign policies of the Soviet Union, Hoover Press, 1991, ISBN 0817991026. The article should probably be renamed, and this can be discussed on talk. As the nominator notes, the subject is "cases where the Soviet Union is believed to have provided funding and/or exercised undue influence in various Western peace organizations", and the subject is notable and referenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Staar isn't a scholar. He works for a right-wing think tank, not a university, and there is no evidence that his work has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The entire thrust of this book was to emphasize how powerful, malevolent, and dangerous the USSR is. The book was published in 1991. You do the math. I read the same pages cited in the article and came upon the following statement: "A major objective under Gorbachev is to isolate the United States from its NATO allies by proposing the formation of a common European house comprising both West and East Europe, including the USSR, but in the long run excluding the United States." Again, this was published in 1991, when Gorbachev's biggest "objective" was trying to stop the USSR from completely disintegrating. *** Crotalus *** 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book is likely biased, but I doubt when he is citing figures on how Soviets sponsored certain peace movement organizations he is making it up. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe/Noticeboard.

Keep and rename to something like "Soviet-funded" or "Soviet-supported". The subject of Soviet influenced organizations is certainly encyclopedic, and there are reliable sources for that. Not sure whether I'd characterize Regnery as unreliable, but for the sake of argument, assume that it is. In that case, there are still other reliable sources. Sorry, the Hoover Institution is a reliable academic organization, respected by many who aren't themselves crazed by leftwing ideology. We consider the New York Times a reliable source, despite its editorial POV. Time and Newsweek, and The New Yorker, too. It's pretty clear that plenty of sources exist. Reconsideration (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory search for Richard Felix Staar on both Google Books and Google Scholar shows nothing but his own works. There is no evidence that he is taken seriously by anyone in the academic community. If this is going to be discussed as a real phenomenon and not a conspiracy theory, then there should be some evidence of mainstream support. Staar's book fails the "fact-checking and accuracy" test. *** Crotalus *** 21:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try Richard F. Staar, looks much better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory search of the article's own Notes section gives a link to a Time magazine article from the '80s. It clearly is reliable and it clearly discusses Soviet support for Western groups. I looked it up. Check it out: Using national Communist parties or recognized Communist-front organizations like the World Peace Council, the Kremlin has been able to channel funds to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source. [6] And on the next page of the article: For several years, Danish intelligence monitored numerous secret meetings between Arne Petersen, a Danish peace activist and writer, and three KGB agents. According to the Danish Ministry of Justice, the KGB promised to help finance advertisements officially sponsored by Petersen and signed by prominent Danish artists who wanted Scandinavia to be declared a nuclear-free zone. In November 1981, Norway expelled a suspected KGB agent who had offered bribes to Norwegians to get them to write letters to newspapers denouncing the deployment of new NATO missiles. [7] So we have a reliable source for "Soviet-supported". You can't seriously doubt that there are reliable sources out there for this. Reconsideration (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And CNN is a reliable source: From an interview with a former KGB agent: ... The [KGB] programs -- which would run all sorts of congresses, peace congresses, youth congresses, festivals, women's movements, trade union movements, campaigns against U.S. missiles in Europe, campaigns against neutron weapons, allegations that AIDS ... was invented by the CIA ... all sorts of forgeries and faked material -- [were] targeted at politicians, the academic community, at [the] public at large. ... [8]I don't find this nomination credible. Reconsideration (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article cites Soviet defectors Lunev and Kalugin's statements on the KGB's funding of campaigns and running of conferences, but they are vague. The best of a clutch of bad sources is Frederick Staar, who had access to FBI reports to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Despite their access to key documents, these authorities do not name any major peace organisation that was run by the Soviet Union. US intelligence sources are also cited; they mention the total sum that is supposed to have been put into western peace movements by the Soviets but they do not name a single organisation either.

Some of the major peace organisations in the Cold War were the National Coordinating Committee to End the War in Vietnam, National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization), the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign, Washington Peace Center, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, European Nuclear Disarmament, War Resisters International and the British Council for Peace in Vietnam. If they were run by the Soviet Union, why has no-one named them?

Three named organisations are said to have been funded by the Soviet Union: the World Peace Council, which was well-known as a Soviet-led organisation, and the virtually unknown Christian Peace Conference and International Institute for Peace.

This imprecision and lack of specificity in the sources, and the notable absence of any reference to any major organisation, makes them questionable. They do not provide a good enough basis for an encyclopaedia article, especially on a topic that is bound to be tainted by disinformation and black propaganda.

It is inherently unlikely that the Soviet Union could have run any western peace organisations, given what we know of them. Most were left leaning, but many of the leftists in them were New Left, Trotskyist or anarchist. They were fiercely anti-Russian and as such were hated by the Communist Party. It is doubtful that the KGB could have had any influence on them. The editors who have constructed this article seem to be unaware of such differences on the left.

Indeed, they seem to be unfamiliar with the history of western peace movements altogether. I had a lengthy exchange with Piotr on the question of Soviet influence on pre-war peace organisations in the UK, which he insisted he had evidence of. Despite my repeated questions, he could not name a single such organisation. If he knew anything about the subject he would know that the major organisation of the period, the Peace Pledge Union was, far from being run by the Soviet Union, a notorious apologist for Nazi Germany!

The one proven attempt at Soviet influence on a peace organisation was a dismal failure. Vic Allen, a Stasi spy, was a delegate to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's governing council and stood against Joan Ruddock for the chairmanship. His Stalinist rants were treated with ridicule on the council and he gained few votes.

The article includes a claim by Sergei Tretyakov that the Nuclear winter hypothesis originated in two articles faked by the KGB and then disseminated by them in the west. The claim is WP:Fringe. This is discussed at Nuclear Winter and Georgy Golitsyn, where it transpires that the alleged articles cannot be identified, that Tretyakov gets the chronology wrong and that there was friendly co-operation between US and Russian atmospheric scientists on the research that led up to Nuclear Winter. Golitsyn, an internationally respected scientist, was the originator of the theory in Russia. This casts doubt on Tretyakov's claims. User:Martintg and User:Biophys, two editors on the secret mailing list, promoted Tretyakov on the Nuclear Winter and Golitsyn talk pages and in this article. To that extent, the Nuclear Winter section in "Soviet-run peace movements" is a POV fork

If there is little evidence of Soviet influence, if it is inherently unlikely and if there are so few reliable sources, how did this article ever come to be written? Since the Second World War conservative ideologues (e.g. Julian Lewis and Vladimir Bukovsky) have presented the peace movement as a Russian tool. I suggest that this article was written to promote a conservative, anti-Russian and anti-peace movement POV.

The POV of several of the editors is revealed in the way they misquote their sources. Whether the misquotation is deliberate, or simply sloppy, it is impossible to say. For example, Staar says that some bodies were "closely associated" with the World Peace Council. This, in the article, was turned into "Soviet-run peace movements" being "supervised" by the WPC, a very different thing. Staar says that the Soviet Union sent delegates to international peace conferences. This was turned into the conferences being "affiliated " with communist front organisations, when Staar never suggested any such thing. (See this revision.) Marshall46 (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very long comment. Could you summarize? You state If there is little evidence of Soviet influence, if it is inherently unlikely and if there are so few reliable sources and then cast aspersions on "several of the editors". Do you mean editors in this discussion? I didn't misquote, I cut-and-paste quoted. The quotes I gave above establish that there is evidence from reliable sources stating that the Soviets influenced some peace groups. It's pretty simple. An NPOV article titled "Soviet-influenced peace movements in the West" rather than "Soviet-run" would be well sourced. The urge to delete doesn't seem to have a foundation in policy. In fact, to make it perfectly clear, I'm going to be bold and move the title. It can be changed back if there's no consensus for it. Reconsideration (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, here is a summary of my argument

The sources are suspect because, despite their access to key documents, they do not name any major peace organisation in the west. The only organisations said to receive funding are the Soviet-run World Peace Council and two obscure bodies.

As the topic is is tainted by propaganda, we need better corroboration.

The leftists in peace organisations tended to be anti-Stalinist and hence resistant to Soviet influence. The one proven attempt (on CND) failed for that reason.

The section on Nuclear Winter is a POV fork.

The editors of the article distorted their sources to strengthen their POV.

Marshall46 (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was subject a lot of gutting, and information on links to some other major organizations were removed. Please see pages 80-81 for the list of organizations funded by the Soviets, and the following two pages for organizations "closely allied with the fronts". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Major organisations" like the African Workers' University, the Berlin Conference of Catholic Christians and the Esperantist Movement for World Peace? Yes, links to such organisations were removed because the article is about western peace movements and most of the organisations on that list are not peace movements. Marshall46 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's notable and well cited. If the argument is simply that it doesn't represent a consensus of modern thought, let's either mark it fringe, or introduce the opposing viewpoint into the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - documents a notable, observed phenomenon upon which reliable sources have commented extensively. Yes, may need a rename, and yes, some of the sources may have an ideological axe to grind, but the solution is to present relevant opposing viewpoints, not to get rid of the whole thing. WP:PRESERVE demands no less. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please don't move the article to new titles undiscussed on talk. There is consensus for a change from run to influenced, but there is no consensus to add "allegations of" to the title. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is some interesting things going on with this article, the Afd is titled "Soviet-run peace movements in the West" and the current title is something quite different, while there is no "Request for move" at the article talk page. Very inappropriate to have a different name than the Afd discussion lists. Before any Afd, the naming process should be finalized with correct request for moves, so we know what is exactly at Afd. A name and the resulting scope of the article is something that can be considered during Afd, so it should be settled first. Hobartimus (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a discussion currently on the article talk page about the title. I thought my move reflected what the article actually says. Now Marshal's changed the name to a third title. I didn't think it would be disruptive, but perhaps I was wrong. Reconsideration (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Soviet funding and direction of western 'peace' movements is a well documented historical fact. The fact that certain editors would rather pretend this wasn't the case is neither here nor there. Nick mallory (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it were indeed a "well-documented historical fact," then one would expect some real academic sources, not just a handful of works from scurrilous right-wing presses and polemical think tanks. *** Crotalus *** 13:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We do need to be clear about what is meant by a western peace movement. It is well-known that the World Peace Council was funded and directed by the Soviet Union, but to that extent no-one ever regarded it as western. Two other organisations that Staar said had Soviet funding were not really western either: the Prague-based Christian Peace Conference and the pro-Soviet Esperanto Movement for World Peace, which was strong in Hungary and East Germany. All that is left is the International Institute for Peace, which I don't know anything about, but is hardly the basis for an article making such strong claims as this one.

I suspect that there is confusion here between Soviet front organisations, like the WPC and its affiliates, and the western and non-aligned peace movements of the cold war period, which were not Soviet influenced. In the 1950s they attempted to co-operate with the World Peace Council, but there was a major rift in 1962 at a WPC-organised peace conference in Moscow. The following year, forty western organisations, including some of the major peace groups of the period, set up the International Confederation for Disarmament and Peace as a non-aligned alternative to the WPC, to which Soviet delegates were not invited.

So what this article is about is not Soviet influence on western peace movements, but the WPC and its affiliates. These are probably the bodies that Lunev refers to when he talks about Soviet manipulation of the peace movement, and these are the organisations mentioned by Staar. That should be put in the article on the World Peace Council, which takes too much from the organisation's own website and needs improvement. Marshall46 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links to several sources, including books by prominent historians, on the article's talk page [9]. Please take a look - it is ineed a well documented historical fact, not something supported only by "scurrilous right wing presses" etc.radek (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- when it's said someone works for a "right-wing think tank" I'd expect something a bit more extreme. Hoover is a well-respected institution. Regnery is definitely conservative, but it's pretty solid. The crack-pipe Christmas tree charge was in a book written by a former FBI agent. As I remember the story, the White House Christmas tree was decorated with items donated by supporters. Most presidents have a few oddball supporters. It's not at all surprising that Clinton would have a lot of them. -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--There have been tons of documents released by the FSB/KGB supporting this. There are likely other references which were not uncovered by the editors. Da'oud Nkrumah 07:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This entire page is pure trivia and goes against WP:TRIV. It would take a substantial rewrite to make this remotely encylopedic, and even then I don't see that it serves any purpose. magnius (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs referencing, and some trivia could be removed, but EE is very popular and is referenced widely in popular culture. Deletion is not cleanup. Stephenb (Talk) 21:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's impossible to delete this entirely and should be cleaned up before considering merging with EastEnders. EastEnders has had a huge impact on popular culture. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the impact of EastEnders on popular culture is significant, genuine and enduring. It deserves an article. The fact that the current article needs some maintenance doesn't mean it should be deleted. See the excellent argument over at the debate on The Prisoner In Popular Culture. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs cleanup, not deletion.GunGagdin ^Moan 22:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Editors disagree about whether this person's media impact is sufficient for notability. Sandstein 06:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Blaylock[edit]

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

Notability has not been established from WP:RS per WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Editors are forced to WP:OR and use of primary sources to find even the most basic information about the subject. Although subject has been quoted by several (mostly) fringe internet websites for his iconoclastic views on vaccination, aspartame, MSG etc., no independent, reliable sources have been found about the subject himself. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not that I disagree the sources are not strong, what do you meant by "Editors are forced to WP:OR"?--TParis00ap (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Subject is said to be a neurosurgeon, but for a source, editors had to perform an online search through "Webdoc" or something similar to find any information on the individual. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but you say editors use Webdoc to find it. So is your biggest issue primary sources on webdoc? I'm not trying to catch you in a trap if that's how it seems, I'm just confused by how you said it.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of original research is that performing such a search to find information that hasn't been published is OR. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, searching Google for sources would be OR. In this case, it looks like some sort of limited-access site. We'd need to know more about it before it's considered "published" or not. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:FRINGE subject that fails all our relevant notability criteria, despite his self-promotion (by which I mean lack of RS, etc). Verbal chat 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the level of third-party coverage does not rise to the level of "significant", and gives no indication of any mainstream scientific notice of his WP:FRINGE claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I disagree with the fringe music of the numerous garage bands that have articles describing them in Wikipedia (in the thousands), but that doesn't give me or anyone else the privilege to declare them damnatio memoriae in this work. Blaylock's views may not be mainstream, but the fact that both he and his works have been quoted in the Fredericksburg Free Lance Star (listed as reference #8 in the article), and also in the Chicago Tribune (reference #4 in the same article) is more that enough to establish him as a serious subject; as such I dispute your notion that none of his article's citations are reliable. Hence, I declare Russell Blaylock a notable subject. HarryZilber (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Google search on "Russell Blaylock" yielded a respectable 73,100 hits. Compare that to 37,100 Google hits for "Adelle Davis" who also wrote books on health and nutrition. Yes Blaylock is controversial, but the public attention he gets from being controversial is what makes him notable. Greensburger (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a good argument for keep - we don't go on ghits. Verbal chat 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the standard per WP:PROF is higher than simply having been quoted in newspapers; I'm unable to see a criterion there that he meets. That leaves the general provisions of WP:N, however, which he appears to fulfill - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I see significant coverage in the Chicago Tribune, CBN News, and other news outlets, none of which are obviously unreliable, so as potentially fringe as this fellow is, he falls within the notability guidelines. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these multiple WP:RS with significant coverage of Russel Blaylock? Verbal chat 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're the ones referenced in the article. As I said above; coverage in the Chicago Tribune, CBN News and other news outlets. I'm open to an argument that the coverage isn't significant or the sources aren't reliable but in the absence of one I'm prepared to assume they are. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned a number of times on the talk page of the article, and is checkable by doing the relevant search, the free cites were chosen out the many available ones out there because the majority of others require a payment to see the information.Alf ^melmac 14:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blaylock has made substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity - one of the conditions listed at WP:PROF which requires only one of the list be satisfied. Very strong agreement with HarryZilber's comments about editors having issued damnatio memoriae without cause.Alf ^melmac 09:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on radio shows does not satisfy the "substantial impact" clause of that criteria. Verbal chat 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion on that, I stand by mine.--Alf ^melmac 14:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable supporter of fringe medicine. Article does not satisfy WP:BLP. Most of the sources are either written by Baylock himself, or are only a passing mention, which does not satisfy WP:RS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - publications plus press coverage plus ghits adds up to notability here. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOOGLEHITS does not satisfy WP:N, nor do trivial mentions in press. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ghits do not establish notability on their own. However, they can be one piece of a notability argument - they are, if you like, circumstantial evidence of notability when corroborated by other evidence. And the press coverage is more than "trivial mentions". Gandalf61 (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - G-hits are very low on the list of the notability argument. And if you'd care to present some non-trivial press coverage, we'd like to see it. Of the ones listed (NOT written by the subject himself):
      1. A Game of Hide and Seek is behind a paywall, so that one will have to wait for now;
      2. Want Full Disclosure With That Meal? appears to be down;
      3. Flavor-Enhancing Msg Is Everywhere, But Is It Harmless Or An "Excitotoxin"? is about "excitotoxins," not Dr. Blaylock.
      4. The Hidden Danger in Your Food cites Mr. Blaylock's opinions as an interview about MSG; it's a three-part article on the site about MSG, of which, MD. Blaylock's opinion gets a few paragraphs.
      5. MSG, Cancer, and Your Heart is, again, another article about MSG that happens to quote a few sound bites by Blaylock. Further, both this and "Hidden Danger" are by CBN, not a reliable source of reporting on science matters, so at most these could be used to cite his opinions.
      6. Sugar substitutes aren't always so healthy is a letter to the editor, not even an article, and should be removed even if the article survives.
      7. How sweet it isn't? Natural alternatives to sugar, minus the calories and carcinogens. again gives Dr. Blaylock a passing mention in one paragraph.
    - So, we have one behind a paywall (which I can look into later at home), one down, two articles by CBN that are about MSG (not Dr. Blaylock), a letter to the editor, and a passing mention. Perhaps the one behind a paywall has something, but even then, that's one article about him. That doesn't strike me as notable in the least. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can see that the CBN articles all have substantive presentations of Blaylock's theories. We don't need peer-reviewed research to establish notability - the credibility of CBN as a source of scientific information would only be relevant if it was used to validate a claim that Blaylock's views were correct, which isn't the case here. Go and pick a fight with someone else - we are done here. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be rude, and I'm not "pick(ing) a fight." The entire point of AfD is to debate the merits of the article; you need a bit of a thick skin to deal with this! So, let's assume that other folks find CBN to be a valid source of notability. In that case, we have CBN and potentially the article behind the paywall as proof of notability so... two sources, instead of one. Still not very strong evidence that he's notable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a third nuetral party, can I suggest ya'all just be careful of personal attacks and offer you a "cookie of friendship" and maybe a beer?--TParis00ap (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TParis00ap has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding ((subst:Cookie)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with ((subst:munch))!

Referring back to the question on the reliability of citations within the Russel Blaylock webpage, the Tampa Bay St. Petersburg Times was readily searchable this afternoon and produced the article: Want full disclosure with that meal?, which discussed Blaylock and his work in two of its paragraphs. That along the Chicago Tribune article: FLAVOR-ENHANCING MSG IS EVERYWHERE, BUT IS IT HARMLESS OR AN "EXCITOTOXIN"?, where the article's summary is readily viewable and includes this portion on Dr. Blaylock: "....The latest questions about MSG risk have been raised by Dr. Russell Blaylock, a neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi, who speculates that glutamates from food can pass into the brain, where they can overstimulate neurons and eventually destroy them. Such substances have been dubbed "excitotoxins."", and the fully viewable article: Sugar substitutes aren't always so healthy in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star which has a paragraph on his work, makes three reliable news sources which have described both him and his work –that's probably more reliable sources than 15% of the articles in the English Wikipedia (I've run random article quality surveys on English Wikipedia articles in the past). Unless WP admins are willing to AfD that quantity of existing articles in Wikipedia in order to raise the minimum benchmark for inclusion of articles in WP, others such as myself may conclude that some people are trying to eliminate the Russell Blaylock article for ideological or similar reasons, not WP:N issues.

Self-disclosure: I have no relationship with Russell Blaylock, any of his supporters or any organizations conducting similar research. I do not necessarily agree with his views since I use Aspartame every day and I find his stance similar to a flight surgeon who once seriously proposed at a lecture that pilots should be barred from drinking coffee, as caffeine has many well-documented negative effects. Since numerous people use MSG, Aspartame and drink coffee worldwide every day without dropping dead or crashing their aircraft, both Blaylock and the flight surgeon have likely overstated the negatives of the drugs they're discussing. However that doesn't mean that articles about them shouldn't be permitted in Wikipedia, only that those disagreeing with their works should be citing reliable criticisms on those issues, i.m.h.o. of course. HarryZilber (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The Times isn't coming up at work, so that may be some work filter. I'll try that again at home later. The exerpt of the EXCITOTOXIN isn't a reliable source itself, so we can't assume the article is relevant until it's read. Finally, you yourself said the Sugar Substitutes article only has a paragraph about Blaylock; that's the epitome of a trivial mention.

That said, even if we take it for granted that we have three reliable sources, they're all about Blaylock's work on sugars/MSG/"excitotoxins", and not about Dr. Blaylock himself. All this would show is that there's enough RS for the Excitotoxins article, not Dr. Blaylock. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per numerous strong 'keep' reasons posted above and as per weak 'delete' reasons posted above. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete I have no doubt that Blaylock is excellent at promoting himself, but his opinions are fringe, his actual media exposure is being exaggerated; many of the sources that have been cited are small papers or his radio show exposures and the 700 club, he was on these programs mostly as a guru about excitoxins. Despite the flurry of editing this article has seen recently the only things that make him appear notable have been wp:npov or primary sources. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per HandThatFeeds and Vioceofreasons01.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep The following sentence was deleted from the Blaylock article ~~three~~ four times: "He was licensed to practice Neurological Surgery in North Carolina between May 6, 1977 and December 15, 2006.[ref>North Carolina Medical Board [/ref>" and the reliable source was also deleted. This is clear evidence that there is a concerted attempt by some editors with a hostile Conflict of Interest to conceal Dr. Blaylock's 20+ years of experience as a neurosurgeon. Edits that falsely make Blaylock appear to be an inexperienced crackpot are a violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and a libelous attempt to mislead Wiki admins. Greensburger (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been found on the WP:RSN, these kinds of searches are WP:OR - and it in no way helps establish notability. Policy seems to be for delete, while the keep !votes are mostly WP:ILIKEIT and based on his self promotion and google hits. He clearly fails our notability criteria. Verbal chat 08:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Verbal - Are we reading the same AfD ? Almost all of the keep !votes I see above are arguing that there are sources that establish notability - I can't see where there is a single WP:ILIKEIT post, let alone "mostly". I am afraid you are misrepresenting the views of other editors here. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of keep votes that make a sop towards notability but don't stand up to any scrutiny. Verbal chat 09:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Verbal - You are entitled to your opinion. But just because you disagree with an argument or find it unconvincing does not make it WP:ILIKEIT. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using the North Carolina Medical Board web site is not Original Research and is not a search. It is page lookup of a specific page - you key in his name and you get the specific page that attests to his being licensed. This is no different than referring to a specific page in a book or journal. That a provable fact about Blaylock has been deleted four times proves the extreme bias of those who are vandalizing Blaylock's article. This is a blatant violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Greensburger (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background to this debate: for those unaware, this article was AfD'ed several days after it was debated on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories Noticeboard's article on Russell Blaylock (which will eventually be archived there if the preceding link is nonfunctional). To summarize: several editors, principally Fences&windows, Cs32en and Verbal discussed the Russell Blaylock article and essentially concluded that since he was a proponent of Excitotoxicity and was named in this 2005 Guardian article as someone critical of Monosodium Glutamate, that his BLP article should be declared Fringe Theory. IP editor 86.3.142.2 pointed out over several paragraphs that the 1) a BLP article is not a 'fringe theory' even though it discusses someone who purportedly supports one, and therefore should not be discussed on that noticeboard, and 2) nowhere in the Guardian article does its author say that Blaylock was a purveyor of fringe theories, or even words close to that (cs32en argued otherwise). The Fringe Theory noticeboard article concludes when Verbal states that the Russel Blaylock article had been AfD'ed.

Personal observation: I consider it laudable to support fact-based science; however in this instance I've viewed a concerted effort to eliminate the Russell Blaylock article due to his support of alternative medicine –actions I consider counter to Wikipedia's strict No Censorship and Neutral Point of View policies. HarryZilber (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I raised it at the noticeboard because it was full of unsourced strange sounding claims about his battles with the FDA, so I wanted others to take a look. He definitely is on the medical fringe; he's an Associate Editor of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, which is a right-wing fringe publication. I wasn't planning/expecting for the article to be nominated for deletion, and I don't care either way. Fences&Windows 00:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep He fails wp:prof his theories are not science and are very fringe and his academic work is not academically notable. But he does seem to see a fair amount of third-party media attention for his theories and claims; I would think that it would be more than enough to satisfy the relatively low threshold for notability on wikipedia. If nothing else the large amount of interest in the AFD discussion should suggest he may be notable. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that this is a prominent proponent of theories that are fringe is what makes this a definite keep. Having a biography of the person isn't the same as endorsing his best known claims, and Blaylock seems to have published widely about his minority/fringe views. LotLE×talk 02:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-publishing does not make him notable, nor do we have enough other sources to show how he is notable, much less to make a BLP compliant biography. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:prof is irrelevant. Blaylock is not an academic and he is not a scientist. He is an experienced neurosurgeon with mainstream credentials who has used his extensive knowledge of the medical science literature to publicize scientific discoveries made by other people, by scientists who publish in reputable scientific journals. In Blaylock's book Excitotoxins, he cites more than 490 scientific papers. You would not call Larry King "fringe" because he has not become a senator or won olympic gold. King is notable because he interviews hundreds of such people on TV. Likewise Blaylock is notable because he excels at bringing medical science discovers to the attention of the public. Greensburger (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of papers he cites isn't relevant to his notability. Really, based on your argument, the only notable thing is the Excitotoxins, not Dr. Blaylock himself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The scientific papers he cites in his books support the facts that he presents as popularized science, not fringe stuff. The fact that his publications have created controversy and attracted public attention to Blaylock, causing his detractors to libel him and attempt to marginalize him, attests to his notability. Greensburger (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Er, no. That he cites papers and determining they back his theories would be WP:OR on our part. And "controversy" does not mean "notability." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Blaylock and his sources did the research, not us. If Blaylock were not notable, you would not care and neither would I. The fact that Blaylock's detractors are spending their valuable time to write specious arguments here in an attempt to subject Blaylock to Damnatio memoriae attests to him being notable. Greensburger (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (sigh) No, that's not how it works on Wikipedia. Please try again once you've read WP:N. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first three citations say it all - they rebut Blaylock's theses without mentioning him in particular. Writing for NewsMax and JPANDS similarly confer no notability. His books have received some attention (e.g. this review in the Alternative Medicine Review), but I have not found any particular evidence of impact. The media appearances come closer, but they honestly are just a step above self-published. Given that this is a biography of a living person, it is especially crucial that we use solely in depth high quality independent sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alienated (film)[edit]

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

WP:SPAM Appears to be part of "viral marketing" campaign for movie. Movie is from unknown studio, not yet released, not in IMDB, not notable, and may not even exist. Only refs are to promotional site for film. John Nagle (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete with nuclear fire. It was scheduled for release this past summer. No evidence of this movie has otherwise turned up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for sources is what is in the article. Joe Chill (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can tell this film doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:MOVIE and has insufficient citation to meet the general notability requirements at WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:01, 30 September 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Crane (band)[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion for an article about a new band; asserts some importance but still doesn't seem to meet wp:MUSIC. Tikiwont (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tikiwont (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article does not meet any of the criteria at WP:BAND and further fails WP:N ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") as the cited sources appear to be all published by the band themselves. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources were not written by the band. The articles that were written have all been credited to writers - NOT anyone in the band. They are popular publication the Northeastern Florida market. Tom02lithium (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further review of WP:BAND finds that this article meets two criteria (only one needed). "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries"

The articles were not written by the band themselves, and there are printed versions of the articles that are disseminated throughout northeast Florida.

This articles ALSO meets the criteria of this:

"7. # 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."

This band has become one of the most popular (if not THE most popular) original band in Jacksonville, a city with rich musical history (Lynyrd Skynrd, Molly Hatchet, Limp Bizkit, Shinedown, Cold, Red Jumpsuit Apparatus). The independent articles demonstrate this fact.Tom02lithium (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the sources do indeed not seem to be self-published. Nevertheless, Examiner.com is more like a blog and the EU Jacksonville is a monthly freely distributed entertainment guide, something which exists in most bigger cities and lives from extensively covering the local scene. As for the pint 7 that is in my opinion intended as a rough measure but the examples you mention actually show that they still have some way to go before coming close to being "the most prominent representative of the Jacksonville music scene (different from popular) and the cites consistently label them " talented local band", "Another band bringing great pride unto our city", "may be Jacksonville's next metal band to 'make it big'", which again would be more convincing if brought up in more solid refs. I don't think we should join the hype yet. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only independent, reliable source cited is http://www.eujacksonville.com/. (Consensus at WP:RSN is that examiner.com is no better than a blog). I'd need to see media attention by more than the just the local alt weekly before believing that WP:BAND#1 is fulfilled and a wikipedia article is justified. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:28, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Kendall[edit]

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

Insufficient notability Philip Trueman (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient nomination rationale. Please follow the guidelines in User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article first caught my eye because it is a blatant autobiography, but I now propose it for deletion because it does not, IMHO, meet the professor test. The subject is associate editor of various journals but not editor-in-chief; has done academic work but nothing sufficently outstanding; etc. etc.. I freely admit that I was prompted to propose this for deletion when my ((autobiography)) tag was removed, but the stated ground for deletion is as above. Philip Trueman (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, WorldCat indicates subject's works in numerous libraries (at first glance at least). This meets WP:PROF #1 criterion.Turqoise127 (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any academic's name will show up in such a search - they publish to survive. The test is whether the works are highly cited (emphasis in original), or, alternatively, pioneering. I don't think there's a quantity problem here - there's a quality problem. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - WP:PROF criterion #1 is made out ("significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"), through his work on international journals, conferences, chairing international symposiums, etcetera. He also meets WP:PROF criterion #3 ("Fellow of the Operational Research Society"). He also meets the general notability guidelines at WP:N. He's an incredibly distinguished academic and the article should be kept. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute your claim re #3. The example given in the "professor test" is of fellowship of the Royal Society; the Operational Research Society doesn't even have an article of its own, and a search for the two yields 51 hits (including the GK article itself) for the ORS against over 10,000 for the RS. (On second thought, I now realise this comparison is naive, because the search for RS yields numerous false positives, but the conclusion still stands.) The relevant wording of the "professor test" is 'an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association'; the ORS is not highly selective and prestigious - it's just another ordinary academic society. The test is not met. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; in the absence of evidence to the contrary I'll accept the ORS is non-notable. Thanks for the catch! He still meets PROF#1 and the general notability guidelines, though. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (but rewrite from scratch). Everything looks very much like the average professor. He does what professors are supposed to do: writes papers and books, takes part in organising conferences, etc. Citation statistics in Google Scholar look ok but not particularly outstanding (I compared these to the statistics of some local computer science professors, and again he looks more like a typical non-notable professor, not like a particularly notable professor). Organising MISTA is not impressive – indeed, I seem to have tagged the MISTA article with ((notability)) a couple of months ago. Co-TPC-chairing IEEE-CEC 2007 is a bit more impressive – CEC is, e.g., a tier-A conference in the CORE ranking – but he was just one of 6 co-TPC-chairs. He just does not seem to stand out. That said, I didn't find a strong reason for deleting, either; in prior AfDs, people seem to think that even much lower citation rates satisfy WP:PROF #1. Anyway, a thorough rewrite from a neutral point of view is needed; the current page looks like an unencyclopedic autobio + CV-copy-paste. — Miym (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Top GS cites are 158, 85, 84, 82, 61....h index = 23. Clearly passes WP:Prof #1. Article is bloated and indulgent: needs to be pruned. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per citation analysis by Xxanthippe. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Article looks like a CV and needs to be rewritten (I left a msg. on the article’s creator’s talk page).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Co-chairing two IEEE conferences doesn't really fit any WP:PROF criterion but it's enough to convince me that he's well-respected in a respectable research area. The citation numbers from Google scholar aren't amazingly amazing but they're not bad, hence the weakness of my keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Unreality[edit]

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

This program does not assert notability. TTN (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A viable emulator for a popular gaming paltform would seem notable enuf for me. I would not delete it. Cgmusselman (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles need a decent amount of third party coverage in reliable sources. Just existing is not a reason to keep it. TTN (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So where did you look to check that no such sources exist? Your nomination makes no mention of any such thing, but is rather based upon looking solely at the article and what it "asserts". Uncle G (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I dont know about him, but I looked in WP:VG's custom search engine for reliable sources, and found loads of things for a gaming engine called "Unreal", but nothing about a "Project Unreality". _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good, but that doesn't relieve TTN of the burden. AFD works properly when multiple editors all looking for sources independently of one another support the same conclusion. That way, we can be confident of the conclusion. So far, you're the only editor in this discussion to have even stated that you looked for sources at all. That means that the decision, lacking any further input here, is effectively relying solely upon your research alone, given that the rationales by TTN and Cgmusselman don't put our Wikipedia:Deletion policy into action. Uncle G (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked for sources and couldn't find it anywhere. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet the general notability guidelines at WP:N, which require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence of coverage in reliable, third-party sources, so I think this article fails the verifiability requirements. Google Books shows a handful of hits: some of them are not talking about the emulator, but a derisive nickname for N64 project delays; one is a printed Wikipedia mirror; and one does mention the emulator, but it is simply part of a list with no details whatsoever. Google Scholar shows nothing of value. A regular Web search turns up lots of hits, but nothing that I would classify as a reliable third-party source in this context. Zophar's Domain might be an acceptable source under some circumstances (it is one of the oldest and best-known emulation sites), but all it contains is a couple of sentences. There really isn't sufficient material to pass the general notability guideline or have an article that meets Wikipedia policy. *** Crotalus *** 21:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pork client[edit]

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

This contested PROD is not notable, makes no claim to notability, and a search for references does not show significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: somebody wrote an IRC client. Though its loss will result in the removal of these lines:

A user will begin a session of pork by invoking it on the command line.
% pork

which I find irresistable for some reason. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like today is the day of Judgement for these random irc clients. Delete for lack of notability. --WngLdr34 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having used pork, it is a good client, but of course, that's WP:ILIKEIT. This is nothing of the caliber of Xchat or mIRC, it is pretty much yet another CLI client. Beyond that, with nothing but a little documentation, it won't stand here. Unfortunately. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete nothing to indicate notability. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--were the members of the bacon cabal informed of this AfD? User:ChildofMidnight, User:Kelapstick, and User:Bongomatic are interested, I'm sure, and I don't know if Wikipedia's Automatic Bacon-Related Article Deletion Bot is working properly. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, being that pigs - which pork is derived from - are partially made of bacon, I accordingly see this being partially relevant to their interests. =) Better inform 'em. (Or would that be partially inform?....) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bacon and pork come from the same animal? Right, some magical animal.¹--kelapstick (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oink. And by oink, I mean delete. And by delete I mean burn it with fire as this isn't notable under any definition of the word. JBsupreme (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Burned bacon, that's a terrible smell, JB. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notwithstanding that here is some related significant coverage, this is nonnotable. ^Bongo_matic 06:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes, with regards to that link I'm not sure if I should laugh or be horrified...not to mention what a waste of food ;P
  --Tothwolf (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is actually misnamed. It should probably be listed as pork (IRC client). This Google search [10] turns up quite a bit more coverage and it may very well be possible to eventually do a right proper standalone article for this program. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My initial search for "pork irc linux" on books/news/scholar was uneventful. just fwiw, that a better search term than the plain article title was attempted. Miami33139 (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is somewhat of an older client so it may be more difficult to find coverage. Many of the unix-like clients predate Google and some even predate Altavista. With a web as dynamic in nature as it is, something that might have been there 10 or even 2 years ago that would have been a great reference for Wikipedia today might not still be there now. Sometimes it is possible to find good coverage in websites that have been saved by Archive.org, although in the case of this client, I have no idea where the best place to look might be since I've not had a chance to do much checking. This client is at least notable for being the only curses/ncurses combination IRC/AIM console type client for unix-like platforms. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know that Pork is still live - if I remember right it's even in the current Debian repositories. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, 'apt-get install pork' and there it is. Miami33139 (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Regardless of the article's notability or not, I do not think AfD's should be conducted in this disrespectful manner. Editors who wish to be taken seriously should refrain from attempting to be humorous and cute unless they do so at an AfD of an article they created or contributed to. Turqoise127 (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Turquoise, from what I've observed since doing this for over two years, humor can and will pop up on an AFD. It's not something we can control - and I, for one, would not want to have every AFD discussion 100% serious. Some of these discussions, to be frank, just ask for it. A little silliness is not unwelcome in my opinion. In any event, if you wish to discuss this issue as a matter of policy, I recommend going over to the talk page for WP:AFD for a start. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero significant coverage in RS. Triplestop x3 17:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Comparison of instant messaging clients. This client's main name to fame is its ability to work via a text console or remote session while most Multi-IM clients require a GUI. 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) 07:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is delete although if consensus, for example at Talk:XDCC, emerges in favor of Tothwolf's merge proposal, consensus here is not explicitely against doing so. So Why 11:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bottler (IRC client)[edit]

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

This contested prod is not notable, makes no claim to notability, and a search for references does not show any significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sure then, lets go, is this part of an improvement project Miami33139? --WngLdr34 (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The PROD shouldn't have been contested in the first place. (Which should be obvious.) JBsupreme (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN chat client, zero significant coverage. Triplestop x3 17:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chainsaw Merge and Redirect to XDCC. This is a subtopic of XDCC and should be included as a subsection there. This article should have been merged into XDCC when it was originally split from Bottler back in April 2007. Despite what some of the !votes above claim, this article isn't even about a "chat client". This article should give more of an overview of the Bottler script/client genre and not a specific Bottler client but it currently appears to somewhat focus more on the open source standalone Bottler program than the general concept. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, after the rewrite, consensus has moved to keep. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC) 23:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory fish[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Predator fish

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

Article is a redo of Predator fish, and was moved to this title during its recent AfD (just scroll down to the bottom of this page) in which the result was delete. I attempted to place a db-repost tag on this clear attempt to circumvent consensus, and it was removed. I tried a redirect to Fish, and was reverted. Here's the deletion rational; all fish are predators at some stage of their life cycle. This title is as inappropriate as "predatory snake" or "herbivorous deer". Abductive (reasoning) 17:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept is clearly used by significant authorities such as the FAO and marine biologists, as the cited sources indicate. The nominator's opinion on the matter seems to be OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did all the other people who commented on the previous AfD not count? Are their opinions worthless, or are some overturned by the move during the middle of the AfD, even the ones who said to delete after it was moved to the present title? I didn't even notvote there; this is about an end run around consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 17:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The consensus was that the article would be acceptable with more substantial content. This expansion is now under way. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The consensus was delete. People said that it was redundant to Fish. People said the title was inappropriate. You are flouting the AfD process. Abductive (reasoning) 17:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - AFD is not a vote. The last two comments were headlined Delete but the comments of those editors were supportive of further expansion or retention of the material. Other delete votes were meagre per noms which we can discount. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course, the AfD is down the page, and you have discounted the opinions of the six people who commented there, and discounted the admin who closed the AfD as delete. So instead of going to deletion review or working on the article in userspace or the new article incubator, you have taken advantage of a page move during an Afd (which are not supposed to happen) to edit Wikipedia to make a point about deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 18:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The article Predator fish was deleted and I have no desire to restore it as the title was ungrammatical. My actions have been to develop this better article in which I have a particular interest as my household contains multiple large aquaria containing numerous predatory fish - one has to be kept in isolation as it is so voracious. I did not participate in the AFD to which you keep referring and so am not responsible for it or its consequences. We have a new article with new participants for which we must establish a new consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Moving the article during the AFD resulted in a redirect being deleted, not the actual article- and you claiming that 'justice was done' is nothing short of gaming the system. --King Öomie 18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Where is it said that justice was done? The only occurance of the word 'justice' are now thrice - two in this sentence, and one in yours. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the original Afd for this- which closed not twelve hours ago. Suggest this be handled as a wheel-warred undelete against AFD consensus. --King Öomie 18:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kingoomiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieieieieieieieio. Obvious wheelwarring. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge with fish. Very well referenced article. Ikip (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin This page has gone through an extensive rewrite since it was nominated.[11] Ikip (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's wrong with the references of this article? Are they not valid, proving the term is used? This article was created on 22:01, 7 August 2009. It isn't the same article is the one that got deleted. Two totally different things. Dream Focus 19:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow continued expansion. A perception of wheel-warring should not be cause to dismiss the potential of a decently notable subject, though it might be for cautioning the involved editors. So let's not make this discussion about the editors, and actually look past egos and consider improving the encyclopedia. In looking at the possibilities for expansion and growth as available in news, books, and schloar... the sheer volume of what is available shows notability of the subject. I do not know what the original Predator fish looked like... and yes, its AfD made note of lack of content and sourcing. It must be conceded that the current article looks like it is receiving care and attention and already is a well-sourced and growing stub... and THAT is what building articles is all about. Allowing the current article to remain and further grow further improves the project... specially since the term predatory fish is well covered in reliable sources. Wanting this out at this juncture almost seems an encouragement of a wheel war... and that does not serve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I now know what that the earlier article as sent to AfD was a one sentence unsourced stub [12]. The one being discussed here shares only the title... not the content. Grateful kudos to the editors who have made this now worthy of inclusion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What does not serve the project, in my opinion, is taking any two words that occur together, and stitching together an article around (sourced) instances of the words. As can be seen from the previous AfD, people were not saying that the article was bad, they were saying the concept of an article on predatory fish was flawed. Abductive (reasoning) 19:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was THAT AFD, not this one. It seems apparent that perceived flaws of the earlier article spoken of at a different AfD are being properly addressed in this one. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article at the very least should be worked on in userspace until this AfD is resolved. Abductive (reasoning) 19:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Improvement of articles while they are being discussed at AfD is proper and welcome per guideline, so that as concerns are brought forward, they may be addressed... just as is being done in ths instance. If all that was being discused was some stub that no one was allowed to improve, then there would be little point of a discussion in the first place. Its improvement serves the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In its current state it should be fine. A side note to Abductive's comment above (sorry, can't resist here), the good news is that somebody did not call this article something like Owl Flavored. Now that, my friend, is word stitching in its finest. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Articles are never supposed to be deleted because they are flawed or because they are stubs, or even if they are unsourced as long as sources are available. Isn't that constantly pointed out to newbies who nominate articles based on their appearance? The fact that the article was nominated, notvoted to delete by all but one participant in the previous AfD, and deleted by an admin means that the main argument for its deletion--that it is a poor topic for an article, still stands. No matter how "improved" the article is, all the material belongs (and is already in) the fish article. Abductive (reasoning) 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a different article. Its been around for over a year now. Deleting a different article with a similar name, does not mean that all articles with a similar title get deleted also. Dream Focus 23:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. It's the same article, and it has been around only since August 2009. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't matter; the commenters in the previous AfD are talking about the very idea of an article on predatory fish. Read the previous AfD; people said "...Predator fish" is not a scientific term and the group does not form an actual taxonomic unit, like 'sharks' or 'tuna'. May qualify as neologism as well." "...redundant" "...this is no more article-worthy than 'carnivorous burrowing mammal' or 'omnivorous waterfowl'" "...this is not an article. term could be mentioned as well in [existing] articles" Only one person suggested that it was the stubbiness of the article that was a reason to delete. Abductive (reasoning) 00:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Abductive, dude, the horse is dead. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People: The article was renamed during the prior AFD discussion. This is perfectly fine to do, and something that we even made the AFD notice deliberately safe against. It's the same article as before. Nja247 made a common closing administrator's mistake of deleting the redirect instead of the article where it now was. (There are closing administrator scripts that cause this mistake to occur, and this problem has been discussed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion.) Xe has undeleted the redirect and favours the continuation of this AFD discussion. I've let all of the prior AFD discussion participants know of this discussion, so that they can come here and clarify their opinions for themselves, too. So no more discussion of whether or not this was wheel warring (It wasn't.) or underhanded (It wasn't.), and focus on the article at hand and how our policies and guidelines apply to it, please. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree the article now is in better shape. However I still cannot understand the rationale of an article devoted on predatory fishes as a category. Many taxonomic categories of animals feature predators -the combination of traits does not look unique enough to warrant an article depicting the intersection of the set of fishes and set of predators. It looks a bit like an article on "yellow birds" -they surely exist, they are referenced, but the combination of features is simply trivial. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 01:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Yellow birds. We also have numerous articles with a title of the form <adjective> fish such as White fish. We do not consider such matters solely through the narrow prism of taxonomy as we are a general work which is intended to serve a

general readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your examples. The first is a redirect to a single species of bird. The second is a disambiguation list. If we want this article to be a disambiguation list of predatory fishes or a redirect to, who knows, Barracuda, fine. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that these articles exist, add value and should not be deleted. In the case of white fish, it is a disambiguation page because there are multiple good topics to be covered under this heading. Britain used to have a White Fish Authority, as the matter was so important. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are nothing like the article we're debating of. Comparing a redirect to a species of bird, or a disambiguation page, with a generic article on predatory fishes makes no sense. There is absolutely nothing here that cannot be merged or that isn't redundant with other pages. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 10:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the underlying articles such as Whitefish (fisheries term) are of a similar kind - an adjectival classification of fish which is much used in sources, just like predatory fish, coastal fish, pelagic fish, oily fish, tropical fish, etc. These articles are all quite proper here and proposing to delete any of them is not helpful to our readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I made my argument here. The result was only delete in that very recent AfD because the closer, Nja247, did a head-count instead of analysing the arguments. Nja247's close that failed to delete the article and gave no summary shows a lack of proper attention. I would have opened a DRV if the close hadn't been malformed. Editors who supported deletion because it was a stub are completely wrong in their thinking: we do not delete stubs. The argument that "Predatory fish" is a non-notable topic is ~~laughable~~poor, especially after I pointed to thousands of scholarly articles using the term. This is not a neologism or a random intersection. All the deletion rationales were totally faulty~~: turn your brains on, please~~. This is precisely the kind of ~~blinkered~~ thinking that drives away useful editors who contribute stubs on notable topics only to have them speedily deleted. Fences&Windows 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and Windows, calling arguments "laughable" and ordering people "turn their brain on" is not exactly WP:CIVIL. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 01:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can look past my "incivility" to see my point, which is that these arguments are desperately weak. I rarely sail this close to the wind on civility, but deletion arguments deployed like this infuriate me. Fences&Windows 04:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am saddened to have infuriated you, but the argument to delete I put forward is not that the topic isn't notable, but that it is redundant. If somebody wrote an article on "Feathered bird", the fact that there are Google Scholar hits for the term does not mean that an article on feathered birds is not redundant to birds. It only means that the words "feathered" and "birds" co-occur. I suggest reading the newly written User:FeydHuxtable/AfD is not a war zone. Abductive (reasoning) 05:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive, you should know I contributed to that essay as you were editing it at exactly the same time I was. I've struck out some of my comments, I was planning to anyway. My main mistake has been neglecting to improve the article enough, I forgot that reasoned argument alone is often not sufficient as editors may neglect read and consider the arguments of others before voting, and too many closing admins are happy to do head-counts. What I dislike in AfD discussions is dismissiveness and a lack of explanation, both of which have been displayed in abundance here. Cyclopia's initial "Delete, redundant" is a prime example. You need to argue why it is redundant and to what article. Where in Fish do we give a discussion of fish feeding behaviour? We don't. Where in Predation do we give a discussion of predation in fish? Again, we don't. If predatory fish is such a redundant concept, why is it that thousands of scientists feel the need to qualify "fish" with "predatory"? Comparisons to "feathered bird" and "blonde German girls" are poor analogies; the German blonde example is fatuous and "Feathered bird" gets more than 20 times fewer hits than "Predatory fish". Stubs like this should make us realise the gaps in our coverage. Instead, we delete them. Fences&Windows 18:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get any edit conflicts, so I guess I didn't notice. My feeling is that if that the fish article lacks info, it should be in there. Many times, people notice a lack of coverage and, perhaps fearing the sh^tstorm of WP:OWN they get for editing an established page, create a little article. Picture what would have happened if predatory fish had been created as a redirect first. Then users would be more likely to enter the fray at fish or its talk page to improve the article. As for the feathered birds example, I think you understand my overall point. Abductive (reasoning) 19:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- (2nd edit conflict I should have put the notice up then notified you. ☺) Ahem! See above. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F&W, the point is that "predatory fishes" have almost no distinct pecularity apart from that of, well, being predatory. We have an article on venomous mammals because venom in mammals is a phenomenon that evolved exceedingly rarely and which is notable by itself. But the fact that (some) fishes are predatory? Everything discussed in this article can be merged in fish, or in topics devoted to fish ecology. Really, there's not much difference between this and a general article on German blonde girls. There's full of German blonde girls, it is surely full of references on the specific subject, but the intersection of being blonde and being German is simply trivial -it would not contain more information than describing blondes and describing Germans. If you have proof of the contrary in this case -that is, that there is a peculiarity to predatory fishes that cannot be covered by articles on fish and on predation- I'll be happy to change my mind. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I mentioned in the previous debate, there is nothing wrong with the title or topic. If the article growth (which is the case) then let it grow rather than disrupt the process. If the article gets abandoned (as I thought previously and therefore voted delete) without useful content then put a merge tag, discuss and merge, there is even no need for Afd in this case. (That is also an answer to Fences&windows - we normally don't delete stubs, we merge them). I do have a concern that the recent article expansion is only a rescue attempt which will be abandoned as soon as the discussion is closed. Nevertheless, I stand by that this nomination is both unnecessary and premature. Materialscientist (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not !voting at this point while I mull over the recent changes to the "new" article. I nommed the previous incarnation because it was clear (to me) that the article was an abandoned stub created by a one-time drive-by editor and that no work had ever been done on it. I decided against trying to improve the article because I couldn't think of anything that needed to be in it that wasn't already in (or should be added to) the article at predator. Speaking of which, either or both articles need a link to biomagnification. Which brings me to my central point: if this was an existing section of the predator article, would any of the keepers think it was time to fork the content into a more specific article? If not, why not just add this to the mother article? Losing a stub article is of no consequence to anyone if the information in it is simply put somewhere else. Matt Deres (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our licence requires that, if we put information elsewhere, we maintain a history of the contributions. Such action is therefore best performed by merger rather than deletion. Deletion is only for hopeless cases when we do not wish to retain anything at all. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound as if I'm proposing we copy Paul McCartney and paste it into The Beatles or something. We're talking about a couple of lines - at most - that could trivially be re-written as original material on predator. We have an decent existing article on ABCDEF; why is everyone so concerned about defending a poorly written article on "D"? Matt Deres (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tactic that the ARS have developed to confound AfD discussions. It can be countered by making a note on the talk page of the receiving article stating who the authors were of the material in the deleted article. Don't you wish you had just redirected the stub to fish? That's what I'll do now if I ever find an article on Omnivorous rats or the like. Abductive (reasoning) 17:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anductive, shame on you for besmirching 307 editors. If you have some personal issue with an editor or two, fine.... but don't denigrate the entire ARS membership over your personal issues over gudeline with one or two. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged and edited articles for the ARS, so make that 308. Abductive (reasoning) 04:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then welcome to the family... but I hope you'll understand how I am unhappy to be painted above with a brush intended for a very narrow demographic. The methods of a few individuals are not the the methods of the majority. Fair enough statement? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive, I thought you'd agreed that AfD wasn't a battleground, so what's this talk of tactics and countering them? Colonel Warden is saying that if material is merged then we don't delete. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete, this is totally standard. ARS members didn't invent that, and there's been none of the kind of behaviour A Nobody deployed, which is what you're referring to. There's barely any information in Fish on predatory fish, so how would a redirect be appropriate? Redirects should only be used when the article contains information that the reader employing that search term will be looking for.

Oh, I think AfD is a battleground, but I don't mind as long as we abide by the rules of war, as it were. For example, I don't mind empassioned rhetoric, but I do mind wikilawyering. I get just as ticked off if somebody nominates a clearly notable topic for deletion as you do, but I try to educate the nominator rather than backing them into a corner. If it is true that there is barely any information on predation in the fish article, what course of action does that suggest? Abductive (reasoning) 19:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Deres, is our solution to imperfect stubs to improve them or delete them? The answer is that we improve them under normal editing. Fences&Windows 18:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does the article matter to you so long as the information is presented in a meaningful way and in a meaningful place? You're presenting a false dichotomy between growth and death, when I'm arguing for a transplant to a better garden. Matt Deres (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - last time I voted delete on the basis that we have predator and fish and this article added nothing that couldn't be gained by reading those two articles. Since then the article has been improved and now contains unique and worthwhile information - can't see any further reason to delete it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep its still a really poorly constructed stub, but it is more than the previously nominated article, and it may get more attention now. If its not significantly improved in the next few months, though, i would support another afd. I still have problems with the name, whether this information really belongs in other articles instead, the seemingly random collection of statements, which border on OR, but nothing to my eye which says it cant now be rescued and improved.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The staccato, patchwork appearance of the article currently arises from the method of its construction - finding a reliable source about some aspect of predatory fish and then summarising it. This seems necessary when an article is under attack by carping critics in order to defend it against the charge of OR, which they will commonly make if one writes extensively and fluidly. If one should create a large article on a broad topic of this sort by just writing down everything one knows in a coherent manner, then the article is typically accused of being an essay. This is an absurd criticism, with no basis in policy, but one still sees it here a lot. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recent improvements make it clear that plenty of respectable journals use the term and there is an obvious difference between the fish described here and, say, an herbivorous fish like koi. --B.Rossow · talk 13:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why would you want to delete the article? This is a major issue in marine biology. The article needs to be beefed up. Warrah (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the number of hits in Google Scholar, for instance, this is a going phrase, the nominator's argument about all fish being predatory at some point notwithstanding. "Predatory fish" is a technical term in wide use, and that makes it a notable topic. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas de Klerk[edit]

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

Spammy NN autobio. A single Gnews archive hit, nor can I find any other WP:RS establishing notability. Fails WP:BIO. Tim Song (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is terrible, nothing but fluff. No references are given, and I couldn't find any in Google Books or in the Dutch National Library, and no entry in www.dbnl.org. Those are not good signs, and since there is no evidence of notability in the article, I say delete. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". No sources are cited. Also WP:BLP recommends immediate deletion of all unsourced statements in the biography of a living person, which in this case would require blanking the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in google books or Dutch National Library clear dud. Himalayan 10:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this piece of self-promotion by a non-notable entity. --Lambiam 20:28, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boo radley paradigm[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism; sources do not mention the topic directly, making this original research. GlassCobra 17:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism, that is not used in any of the sources besides this self-published online essay. Note that Boo Radley paradigm was created a couple of days back by Anthony Gears (talk · contribs), and was deleted as a cut-and-paste copyvio of the that webpage. The new article was created a few hours later by new account User:StuCarter - it is no longer a copyvio, but is not notable either. Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Boo Radley Paradigm" is a media studies theoretical construct and of use to students of the mass media as a term to describe a phenomenon common on TV all around the world. It is possibly a neologism, but whether or not it is non-notable is dependant on many factors and depends upon how notability is accounted for. The theoretical basis for the neologism is accurate and up to date, and will become common usage in time as others use it. The previous deletion of the article was done due to copyright issues whilst Abecedare agrtees this is no longer an issue. Notablity was accepted for the previous entry. I have entered the term as a neutral. StuCarter —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuCarter (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC) — StuCarter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This ... I feel this has been done before because television and viewers like unusual things, can it be merged into anything related to Television? --WngLdr34 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the purpose, this is a neologism, which should not be here. An interesting concept, no less, and certainly correct. However, as Stu points out above, there is speculation that it "will become common usage in time" - side note to this is that we are not a crystal ball. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to simply be a newly-coined term for "schadenfreude", as applied to contemporary popular culture. As an aside, the schadenfreude article is in a pretty awful state, being largely a dictionary definition with some random instances of when the word has been used in literature and on TV. I would urge those interested in this subject to develop that into a half-way decent encyclopedia article rather than create an article about one researcher's idiosyncratic name for this concept. As another aside, I'm rather surprised that the article doesn't even say where this neologism comes from. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as neologism/original research. I'm unable to find any evidence that this term has been used outside of Wikipedia. Robofish (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WngLdr34 - I have stated on another discussion page that it may be advisable to re-title the page as this clearly is a neologism. I do believe it highlights something about Mass Media and reality TV that is not dealt with anywhere else and that coining a term for it is an appropriate thing to do or we are left with a burdensome and over-wordy explanation everytime we wish to refer to the concept.

Dennis the Tiger - The term is currently in use though not as yet in physical print. The UK’s Media Magazine currently has an article on the subject under review.

Phil – This term of "schadenfreude" (satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune) is certainly very relevant but it is not at all the same thing as the Boo Radley Paradigm. There has always been "schadenfreude" as part of popular entertainment but the Boo Radley concept is about “reality TV” and especially the “hyper-reality” achieved by media producers exploiting vulnerable people. It is the financial gains and hegemonic concepts behind the use of this very particular "schadenfreude" in terms of the Uses and Gratifications theory that is being developed and no other term has been created to cover this particular arena. It is related to Media studies in particular.

Robofish - The term is referenced to a website so it has been used outside of Wikipedia.

At the end of the day the article may well be inappropriate since new thought is obviously not what Wikipedia is about and it is true to say the term may well fall out of ‘popular’ (if admittedly fairly limited) usage and not be picked up by academia and the popular press. It was originally put on by the author of the term as a way of sharing the idea but was removed since it appeared on his website. I re-presented the idea as a friend and colleague who teaches this term to students and thought others interested in the media may benefit from its inclusion. All the best, Stuart —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuCarter (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:HEY and the withdraw of the nomination. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monsooned Malabar[edit]

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

~~Reads like an ad for a variety of coffee bean; unsourced and has a long history of spamming, etc. but want full input from the community~~ Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Stub, unsourced and no links to it? Delete. --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 20 Gscholar studies, 52 Gbooks coverage pieces, 97 Gnews coverage pieces for a variety of coffee beans. Can easily be referenced. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after the excellent rewrite with sourcing by SpacemanSpiff. Nice rescue! Abecedare (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced now. Salih (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - the article as it stands is not the article I nominated, nor the spam which it replaced. Withdrawn. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Mooy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A declined speedy, even though nothing has changed from the first AfD - he still fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He still does not pass WP:Athlete and until he does the article should be deleted. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing has changed Spiderone 20:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Guys... look i'm not an intelligent guy, i dont know what the protocol here is and I don't know how to type the way you guys have.

But please... Aaron Mooy, regardless of what stipulations and regulations you guys have tried to set in the past, is worthy of having a Wikipedia article about him. He is a member of the Liverpool FC squad, and is an international player for Australia's U20 side.

I don't know how to read this WP:Athlete guideline you have, but surely you can use common sense in this situation and realise he's worthy of having an article? This is not some indulgent thing, he's represented his country, surely that's enough in it's own right? Otherwise if this article gets deleted, I'm sure thousands more must be too... so please be reasonable with regard to this article. Thanks =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbane Man (talk • contribs) 02:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Check out this video on youtube, uploaded very recently. First guy you see is Aaron Mooy playing for his country. http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=UKErEb1QoWE

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbane Man (talk • contribs) 02:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's actually signed to Bolton, not Liverpool...Giant Snowman

Keep as numerous youth appearances for Australia and in the squad at Premier League. Has lots of internet hits showing wider notability, including [13] Eldumpo (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Youth caps do not confer notability and simply being signed to a team isn't enough, you have to actually play to be notable. Oh, and if he as "lots of internet hits" that shows he passes GNG then why have you only provided one article...? Giant Snowman 11:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Until he plays pro, he's doesn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Lara 17:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation as and when he plays professionally -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate when and if he makes a league or cup debut. Govvy (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of theme songs without lyrics[edit]

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

Indiscriminate information. I fail to see how lacking lyrics is a defining criterion for a theme song; that would include 99.9% of game show theme music, for one. See previous VFD from 2005 here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. In addition, who determined the guidelines given for inclusion? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the IP that started this article? (Yes, it's been around that long.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's Wp:LISTCRUFT, pure and simple. It's also amazing how times change - it was saved when it went to VfD in 2005 by being "a cool idea" (three times), "perfectly harmless" and because it "makes plenty of sense". All five of those rationales wouldn't have a leg to stand on now. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One might as well make a list of classical symphonies that don't have lyrics. TV shows either have theme songs that one can sing along to, or they have melodies that people make up fake lyrics for. There are hundreds of examples in both categories. In the latter case, they are called "instrumentals", and in many cases, they have a composer who has given the composition a name (although most often, the song has the imaginative title "Theme from ____". I can see some merit to leaving in the items that have discriminating information, since this type of thing can be sourced. However, I see no merit to a bunch of people saying, "Add NCIS and NCIS:Los Angeles to the list!" Mandsford (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredible listcruft, especially seeing as most programs today either go with some five-second ditty as a 'theme song' or none at all. Can't really source this well as there are a few songs on this list that do actually feature lyrics that aren't played on a show. Nate • (chatter) 04:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep - it's a unique resource that could be used and could be a good exercise for example in creative writing to write your own lyrics to one. Seems worth a page to me. Anrawel (second ever Wikipedia comment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.76.45 (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. ArcAngel (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article remains entirely unsourced, so WP:V applies. The concept as outlined by Carcaroth is probably encyclopedic, and (as has been noted) is touched upon in various articles, but nobody has found reliable sources suggesting it has been referred to by this term, or indeed any sources supporting the current article's contents. Sandstein 17:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shield mate[edit]

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

Unreferenced hoax... was prodded, prod was seconded, prod expired, creator removed prod without explaination or work... I could find nothing to verify this article... Adolphus79 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, the article also strikes me as trying to make a biased point with its final sentance. Searching for sources show alot of different things, but none that support this. --Taelus (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BUT! this is not a hoax. The term is raised in American politics (whether legend or not, the term is used) on the history and issue of Don't ask, don't tell. However, the burden is on the creator to provide references and prod expired. so, I also Endorse speedy deletion as expired prod that has no references. Miami33139 (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- … which is not only not one of the speedy deletion criteria, but is also based on a completely wrongheaded understanding of how Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion actually works. See the nomination for how a rationale that actually has a sound basis in Wikipedia:Deletion policy is given. Uncle G (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete, no sources or links to that page.--WngLdr34 (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is definitely not a hoax, the concept going back thousands of years (see Sacred Band of Thebes and Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece for example). 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - And yet, no mention of the term "Shield Mate" in either of those articles, or anywhere else on the Internet... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which, quite frankly, amazes me. I first encounted the phrase in a course taught by Jonathan David Katz. You'd think all those academics in Queer studies would have published something reference-able by now. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Academics have. But what they have published directly contradicts this article. Sara Elise Phang in chapter 9 of ISBN 9789004121553, for example, states that such relationships are largely undocumented by historians, and whilst such relationships between soldiers and male slaves and prostitutes may have been accepted, "[w]hether soldiers were permitted to have sexual relations with each other, or whether this was punished, is far more obscure; it seems that such practices were punished in the mid-Republic, but evidence from the Principate is lacking.". Pat Southern, in ISBN 9780195328783, notes what Polybius says: that the fustuarium was the punishment for "men who engaged in homosexual acts". So this article's unsourced thesis, that in the Roman army not only was this sort of thing unpunished but the norm and a recognized practice, is directly contradicted by what sources actually say. Uncle G (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a hoax, really, it's just a poorly written and argued essay. I have removed a couple of the links (they couldn't have been called 'references'). As Uncle G proposes, there is in fact an important and relevant literature (even including Beowulf--see Allen J. Frantzen's Before the Closet), but it doesn't support what the article appears to claim. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no refs for use of the term "shield mate" to mean what is described in the article. If authors want to create a general historical article on homosexuality in military forces, fine, but name it accordingly and cite WP:RS. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (disclosure: I rarely comment on AfDs, and only became aware of this discussion after a thread on the wiki-en-l mailing list, please accept or ignore what I say accordingly).
The term "shield mate" does seem a bit wrong-headed, but the non-sexual concept is certainly genuine (and the sexual concept as well, in certain historical contexts, though we have articles for those already, as has been pointed out). The article itself is also confused (as Uncle G has pointed out). What I wanted to comment on here, is the platonic concept of pairs or groups of warriors forming bonds without any sexual connotation, but in a military or fighting context.
The term used here (shield mate) made me initially think it meant "mate" (close friend) in a platonic sense, not a sexual sense. Before reading the article, I thought it might have been hinting at terms that do exist, such as sword brother, blood brother, and shield bearer. Those are paired units. Going beyond pairs, you have groups such as housecarl and the shield wall, where the person on your right-hand side in a shield wall was vital for your protection, hence "right-hand man" (it's in the article). There are also situations in battle where familial ties led to sister-sons defending to the death their mother's brother (unfortunately, the article doesn't explain that yet).
This is all heading towards Anglo-Saxon sources and other ancient warrior society concepts of fighting side-by-side with your sword brother (though the concept is more popular in sword-fantasy novels today), or more prosaically someone who watched your back in a battle just as you watched theirs - literally fighting back-to-back against your enemies. This is the closest I can come to the concept of "shield mate" stripped of its sexual connotations.
As I said, I think the term is "sword brother", but unfortunately, the only sources I could find for this were a review here of The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún, where the reviewer mentions that "Gunnar has unjustly slain his sword-brother" (I have the book, so can dig out the full context if needed). The other source was St Eadweard the Martyr – The Historical King (which needs checking as it may be a non-mainstream view - see last paragraphs of that text), where there is this: "Another word, more widely applicable than þegn, which came to be applied only to noblemen, was gesiþ. This can be understood as companion, but it really means more than that, and also implies the sworn sword-brother of the Heroic Code, which I shall mention particularly in a moment."
There is an entry on wiktionary for gesiþ. For more on this and the fyrd in general, see here. Our material on the fyrd is in our leidang article. But the whole concept of a 'sword brother' seems difficult to pin down. What I'm looking for is the concept of a pair of warriors working together to defend each other in a battle. Is there another term that I'm missing here? And the term "heroic code" (a concept found in many cultures) appears in lots of sources - enough for an article on heroic code? For some reason, the term is only mentioned twice in Wikipedia.
Anyway, apologies for saying very little about the article shield mate, but I was hoping people here might be able to help with sword brother and heroic code. If not, I'll ask at various WikiProjects and the Reference Desk. Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've been meaning to say something about this, and your long comment just now made me remember... for a more modern (and maybe purely American) version, with absolutely no sexual meaning, look up Battle buddy... you are paired up at the beginning of your training, and are responsible for taking care of each other... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally per Fayenatic. There should be an article about this, including both the sexual and non-sexual contexts of pair bonding in military forces - but this is not the article to achieve that goal. (FD: I got here by stalking Carcharoth's edits) Franamax (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's one person's way of looking at the idea of sexual acts between male soldiers:

The public women of the rare settlements we encountered in our wandering would have been nothing to our numbers, even had their raddled meat been palatable to a man of healthy parts. In horror of such sordid commerce our youths began indifferently to slake one another's few needs in their own clean bodies — a cold convenience that, by comparison, seemed sexless and even pure. Later, some began to justify this sterile process, and swore that friends quivering together in the yielding sand with intimate hot limbs in supreme embrace, found there hidden in the darkness a sensual co-efficient of the mental passion which was welding our souls and spirits in one flaming effort.

Written by no less than Lawrence of Arabia, from my 1936 copy of The Seven Pillars of Wisdom. (Warning: the book has no actual pillars or wisdom, it's an incredibly depressing story of wandering around the desert, getting tortured, and in the end having "the man" screw over the people you made promises to. Oh, did I mention that it's also a story of how a man becomes shattered to the core of their existence?) Anyway, there is definitely an article in there somewhere, though perhaps T. E. Lawrence wouldn't be considered a RS. Franamax (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a hoax as such; as Carcharoth and Franamax have mentioned, the concept of two soldiers having a strong personal bond and loyalty to one another is a real one, and several historical examples exist. Unfortunately, I'm unable to find any evidence that the term 'shield mate' has ever been used to describe it. I'll change my position if anyone can show that this is a notable term; otherwise, it's a neologism, and should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I think of it, Achilles and Patroclus and even earlier Gilgamesh and Enkidu make pair-bonding between warriors (sexual or not) a highly notable topic. But as noted, this article/essay is not going to be the one that properly addresses it. Franamax (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in a bout of pure and wild speculation, start with the idea that early soldiers slept on their shields (which I think could be RS'd). From there, it's not hard to get to the idea that two men sleeping on the same shield would be "shield mates". For armies in cold climates, it might turn out to be a simple matter of survival to combine body warmth through the night. And then obviously you would tend to seek the same partner each night, since you'd gotten used to their own incredible stink after weeks without a bath. It's definitely a concept worthy of something beyond my own original research, but I don't have the classical sources to support any of it. Franamax (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after a bit of searching, I came across the following in Google Books: The men we loved: male friendship and nationalism in Israeli culture, by Danny Kaplan. The prologue here mentions "combat fraternity". Chapter 6 is titled David, Jonathan, and other soldiers: The Hegemonic Script for Male Bonding. The terms "heroic friendship", "comrade-in-arms", and "love among soldiers" are used, as well as the more general term dyad, and the Greek term for 'guest friendship' (xenia), along with the term homosocial. The examples from antiquity are Gilgamesh and Enkidu (Assyrian epic story), Achilles and Patroclus (Homer's Iliad), and David and Jonathan (biblical Hebrew story). Difficult to know how to organise it, but the sources seem to be there for something (if not Kaplan, then the sources he refers to). Carcharoth (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Human sexual behavior#Aspects of human sexual behavior, even though it does seem to be an actual phenomenon, there isn't enough information, or reason, for it to be in an article by itself. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC) 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate sex[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. neologism. unsourced and unreferenced. page has been created by a banned user (Sarsaparilla) and edited almost exclusively by a sockpuppet (Obuibo Mbstpo) of this banned user. this banned user is known for creating hoax articles. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Patent nonsense, Wikipedia is not for something one made up in school. L0b0t (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~G5 creation of banned user. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)~~ Snowball delete as nonsense. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This term has been used in movies and pop culture, but there are no sources. Purge and clean. Cleave and Smite. --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This belongs on Urban Dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all above. ArcAngel (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Hate sex is an established slang term for having sex with someone you don't like. The article author didn't invent it, so WP:MADEUP is irrelevant. Finding sources was tough, but the New York Mag described Buffy the Vampire Slayer's sexual relationship with Spike as "hate sex",[14] The Guardian talks about characters in HBO's Hung having "sweaty hate-sex",[15] and Playboy's website featured a now-removed article listing conservative women they would like to have "hate sex" with,[16] which got coverage on Fox News.[17] It's not a neologism, it's not utter nonsense, it's not a hoax. It's not suitable for an article as the sources don't discuss it in depth, so WP:DICDEF does apply. Fences&Windows 20:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's more sources provided by Edison at the last AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hate_sex Fences&Windows 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Ironside writing in The Independent about sex and love: "You can have sex with people you really can't stand talking to, but are still attracted to. You can have sex with people you hate and who may hate you - the "hate fuck" - and you can also have sex with people with whom it is an unpleasant and abusive experience."[18]; Bill Simmons in ESPN: "There was also a scene near the end [of Hoosiers], before the caravan heads toward Indianapolis, where Hackman and Hershey discuss their future and decide that they can't end up together. Apparently Hackman's reason was, "I don't know if a marriage can be built on hate sex, let's cut it off now." Okay, I made that last quote up."[19]; Village Voice on Mr & Mrs Smith: "most entertaining when the Smiths are hell-bent on mutual annihilation—going from covert plotting to naked hostility. The prospect of a hot hate fuck looms tantalizingly, but Liman defuses the sexual simmer much too early with a PG-13 reconciliation, leaving Jolie and Pitt little to do but preen and cutely bicker."[20]. Misogynistic use of the term "hate fuck" about female bloggers has been discussed in Yale Journal of Law and Feminism[21] and The Guardian,[22] and triggered legal action:[23]. Its use in that context was synonymous with rape:[24]. Fences&Windows 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:DICDEF. Wiktionary is now the proud owner of wikt:hate sex, my first Wiktionary entry. Fences&Windows 22:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still concerned with the state of the article and that it might be impossible to properly source this~~, but I'm neutral at the moment~~. The Mask of Hate that Ash added is actually a decent source, and I've found two other somewhat weak sources: I'm not sure this counts as a reliable source, but I wish it did:[25]. Student newspaper article about "angry sex":[26] Fences&Windows 17:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. F&W is right it should be in Wiktionary, but it shoud be here also, to talk about the phenomenon, not just the word. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a dicdef, because a dicdef is characterised by having multiple distinct definitions. The article is not a neologism, it's been around for years, and Fences and Windows has found sources for it. AFD is about whether the article as defined can in the long run end up as a fully fledged article. I think the evidence above is sufficient to show that it can.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hang on there, none of the sources give significant coverage of the concept of "hate sex". I'll be impressed if you can put together an encyclopedia entry with those bare uses as your material. You have to go beyond a definition and attested uses for a Wikipedia article, and bear in mind that the current entry is wholly original research. Perhaps it can be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator to give editors a chance to see if it is salvageable? Fences&Windows 20:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is when the editors invent something. This is about what I believe is sometimes also known as a 'grudge fuck', the contributor certainly didn't invent that. This seems to be just you trying to kill the article and rationalising it, poorly, after the fact. It seems that there is a potential article here, so the AFD should keep it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ this is a well-known slang term that has encyclopedic merit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge After 2nd thoughts, make-up sex does not exist and it is more commonly referred to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to indicate either encyclopedic merit or notability. I can't see anything that distinguishes "hate sex" from all the other reasons people have sex. The article does little more than explain the definition of the term, and therefore it is a dicdef. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an article on reasons or motivations for humans having sex (or to a section in human sexual behavior)—there's certainly been some research and media interest in that recently[27][28]). This could include popular terms like "angry/hate sex," "make-up sex," and "pity sex." —Emufarmers^(T/C) 18:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. We can merge to Human sexual behavior#Aspects of human sexual behavior. Fences&Windows 21:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep Certainly a topic that should be in an encyclopedia, if sufficient source material can be found, so definitely not a delete. OTOH, merging to a more general article while keeping this a redirect would suffice until and unless enough material for an independent article can be found. Carolina wren (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If nothing else, the TV/film formula of "characters who hate each other have sex" seems notable, and I'd be surprised if noone's written about it. --Alynna (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Keep !votes are convincing that this information should not be removed from the encyclopedia although delete !votes correctly point out that it currently lacks significant coverage. As such, consensus is not reach, although Tothwolf's merge proposal should be considered at the appropriate talk pages. Regards So Why 12:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bersirc[edit]

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

This was declined as a CSD nomination. This software is not notable, makes no claim to notability, and has no references. A search for references finds links that say it exists, but not coverage. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability; really could have been speedied under A7. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Nyttend that this could and should have been CSD A7'd, hence the original nomination, but apparently software gets a free pass on that. So let's delete it the old fashioned way for failing any relevant notability standard. JBsupreme (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I click the link to search for it in News, and all sorts of results pop up. [29] refers to it as "highly acclaimed software package Bersirc". Clicking on Google Books and Scholar both show it mentioned in various publications. Most results aren't in English though. With 40 thousand Google hits, its hard to sift through everything and find reliable sources, but surely some exist. Dream Focus 11:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found nothing to show this is notable. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#Bersirc. 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) 05:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Print sources in "Porters: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" by Icon Group International, Inc. page 238, "IRC hacks" by Paul Mutton page 10 - the first one seems quite notable, the second one is just a small note but still, it is there. See also what Dream Focus said above. Yarcanox (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Webster's Quotations book isn't usable, it reprints Wikipedia material. The note in IRC hacks we can certainly use as a reference in the Comparison article but I don't think it is enough by itself for a standalone article. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yarcanox and Dream Focus both correctly point out that this subject has been the subject of coverage in multiple references, although they are only passing mentions. But they point out that improvement might be possible and the delete !votes are not convincing since they do not address those references at all, only the lack of them, which can be addressed through editing rather deletion. As such, consensus is not reached at this point, although Tothwolf's merge proposal might beworth consideration at the appropriate talk pages. So Why 12:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naim (chat program)[edit]

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

This declined CSD is not notable, makes no claim to be notable, and has no references whatsoever. A reference search shows some URLs that mention it exists. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with this, if it doesn't say show up, it shouldn't be up on Wiki just because it is FOSS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So I guess its not an exact fit for CSD, unfortunately, but it sure as hell isn't notable in any way, shape, or form. JBsupreme (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I used Google's book search to look for "Naim" and "Linux" and found it mentioned in many published works. [30] For the software to be mentioned at all, makes it notable. There are also hundreds of thousands of search results on Google for "Naim" and "chat". A lot of people use this software. Dream Focus 03:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Comparison of instant messaging clients. This client's main name to fame is its ability to work via a text console or remote session while most Multi-IM clients require a GUI. 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) 06:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "Linux: the complete reference" by Richard Petersen lists XChat, naim and Konversation as IRC client examples (page 304) [31]. Also, "Windows developer power tools" has it as an IRC client listed at page 1206 [32] and fedora manuals for 9,10,11 have it (e.g. for fedora 11 at page 278, although beside Kopete, X-Chat, Konversation and Pidgin [33]). There are more books to be found on google books when searching for "naim IRC". Isn't this enough print coverage? Yarcanox (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vortec IRC[edit]

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

Delete. Completely non-notable software product as evidenced by the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Contested prod by some anon. JBsupreme (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article. The burden is on the creator. Miami33139 (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 135 Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable software, Zero significant coverage. Triplestop x3 22:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#Vortec IRC. There is nothing in the current article that can't be covered by adding a footnote to one 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) 00:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alias Eclipse[edit]

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

210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC) jon banquer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (talk)

I cannot find significant coverage of this subject in reliable independent sources, therefore it does not meet the notability guidelines. Contested PROD. Chzz ► 14:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is abusive: you have obviously not searched. A google search of "alias eclipse" returns nearly 4,000 links from various sources of information about this software program. It was widely known in the visual effects industry and is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. And I might add that it is certainly more notable than some of the articles that you have chosen to add to Wikipedia, such as "Red Cunt Hair" and "Boothill Foottappers." A quick glance at your contributions reveal several two-sentence articles about obscure topics with only one or two references. These do not warrant Wikipedia entries and I will have them deleted.--Ajerimez (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The software is out of print according to the first hit on a simple google search, and I can't find a company note about it, or anyone who owns it. The closest reference is in GERMAN, which is hard to read for an ENGLISH article. I don't mind foreign sources but this is very hard to prove notability besides a one off mention in an article.--WngLdr34 (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ajerimez that comment seems abusive, and almost a threat man. Please don't make threats over wikipedia to call deletion votes because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT--WngLdr34 (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does Wikipedia permit entries only for software that is currently available for sale? Plenty of the content on this site is for defunct products that were nevertheless notable in their time. Maybe you should take down the Ford Model T page since nobody sells the car anymore? A few minutes spent on google would confirm that Eclipse was a high-end imaging package that was used throughout the visual effects industry in the 1990's, just like Avid Matador and Elastic Reality were (two programs which are no longer available for sale yet somehow have Wikipedia articles).
I don't want to be confrontational, but this just isn't fair. The Alias Eclipse article is being inappropriately singled-out for deletion when it contains legitimate information about a notable software product. This is totally arbitrary and hypocritical considering some of the questionable content that seems to be allowed to remain on this site.--Ajerimez (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ajerimez, please don't take this personally. We are just trying to determine whether the article belongs on Wikipedia or not. The best way to make your point is by being calm and discussing it with people here, not by being aggressive. And please do stop typing everything in bold! Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can actually buy model T kits though, and the Model T is the most important car from an American POV as it introduced mass production and other important modern car innovations. That software did not show up but as dead software on my search. I know about the workstations it used, I have used one back when I was a youth, but simply LINK to better sources here. As of now I cannot in all fairness support it being kept up. I don't go hunting for articles to delete but I am trying to give my opinion here. --WngLdr34 (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of significant coverage in the reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the bold text, I am not accustomed to Wikipedia's system. It's frustrating that many articles on this site seem to have far less substance (and far fewer references) than the Eclipse article, yet they are permitted to remain. That's why I'm taking this personally. I just flagged a few of Chzz's own articles for proposed deletion, as they all contained far less substance and fewer references than the Eclipse article. The deletion flags were promptly removed. So it seems that there is definitely favoritism on here, and that decisions about notability requirements are made not based on objective standards but based on who posted them. That, again, is why I'm taking this personally. If you honestly want to say that you're objective and fair, then treat all articles equally. And if you'd like more references to substantiate the Eclipse article, then I'll go find some.--Ajerimez (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google Scholar returned 0 hits; Google Books returned 19 hits, but most of those were of the "xxx was done using Alias Eclipse software" - none of them were longer than 1 short sentence. Google News returned 4 hits - again no more than 1 short sentence about the software was mentioned. A Google Web search yielded no significant hits from reliable sources. Of the three references provided on the article page, the first (design-engine.com) consists of 7 sentences about this software; the second (freelibrary.com) is a press release about Xyvision returning the software to Alias; the third (digitalkamera.de) is a German review of the software - I'd be more inclined to agree that this should be in the English Wikipedia (as opposed to the German one) if a review in a reliable English-language source could be found. In summary - not enough evidence found to indicate that this software is notable. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The language of a source does not determine what language Wikipedia a subject is treated in. We do not impose such systemic biases. Indeed, we actively work on countering them. Uncle G (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, but as that is the only review, and the only reference with any significant coverage out of those provided, I said that I'd be "more inclined to agree" if English sources were available - as someone not fluent in German, I can't judge whether that particular website is a reliable one or not. The German wikipedia doesn't appear to have an article under "digitalkamera.de", "digitalkamera", "digital kamera", "digital kamera magazin", "digital kamera zeitschrift" or "digital kamera wirtscaftsjournalismus" - which would appear to be the searches that would include this website. If I could verify that it is a reliable source, it wouldn't be a problem - and to be honest, if there were 3 or 4 reviews on German language sites, I would be happier too. If this was one review on an English-language site, I'd be as hesitant - reviews are often based on press releases.

Indeed, if you look at other articles that I have found references for, many have been from non-English sites (Spanish, Italian) even though I don't read these (thank goodness for Google Translate!). I agree that English-only references are not required, but in this case there I'd be happier if there were more significant coverage (English language ones make it easier for me to confirm the content, without Google Translate) - if there was significant coverage in other languages, I'd be quite happy to accept that it is notable. At the end of the day, I can't find those sources in any language at reliable sources -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the reference checking by Phantomsteve. Reviews are very poor indicators of notability, and there are no other sources. Of course, I hold no prejudice to recreation if the contributors to the article dig up notable references in the future. If the software is old, the sources maybe in print that is more difficult to acquire and reference. My criteria is - sources first. This lacks them. Miami33139 (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we should preserve traces of software history. With regards to the comments above about 'Google Scholar' and 'Google Books' books hits: The same is true of manu other subjects, and especially non-consumer software, that are pre-internet. It doesn't mean things that predate the late 90s do not exist or matter. The way wikipedia works best is by having the page here and people gradually contribute information through the years. As an alternative this information could be merged this into its parent company entry Alias_Systems_Corporationlucericr (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although I acknowledge that earlier software that pre-date the WWW should be included, there needs to be significant coverage as per WP:NOTABILITY. I do not dispute that the software existed (there is enough evidence for that), but if it was a notable piece of software, I would expect to find more coverage. However, I would certainly support merging any usable information with the parent company article. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:V, a core policy, says we need significant coverage in reliable sources. It says nothing about them being on the web; if there are books, magazines, plaques on buildings, or any other forms of appropriately verifiable reliable source, then yes, that's fine. If not, then the consensus-based policy says "no". Lucericr, if you disagree with this policy, then please suggest a policy change. Furthermore, there are plenty of topics which predate the WWW but have no problems in satisfying the requirements for sources. Chzz ► 00:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment I'm sorry how did this article come under your scrutiny? From what I'm seeing this article is just 10 days old and reliable references have been added since you flagged it for deletion. It could have been flagged with the 'need source' template or 'stub article' template, as per Wikipedia policy. But in any case, this article now has references to Business Wire and a magazine covering the software. Let the article grow. It's as good as it needs to be in its first week. lucericr (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I didn't say anything about them having to be web-based sources! If someone can find old professional computing magazines (in the UK, that'd be Computing which has been around since the 70s, and Computer Weekly which has been around since the 60s; in the US, possibly Byte - although that probably wouldn't have covered this kind of software - Computer, eWeek (or PC Week), possibly Government Technology Magazine). There may be others (and also in other countries), but those are the ones that come to mind. If someone can find books with significant coverage of this software, that'd be good enough for me too. I don't have access to anything like that, but others may. I have looked as much as I can, so I'll have to leave it to someone else - but unless something significant can be found, then I see no reason why this article should not be deleted. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Byte magazine, eWeek, these are all consumer magazines or PC users, stuff that sell to the masses. You generally won't find references to high-end SGI software from the 90s in there, that's not the what that world is, and that's not how the world worked. Again, it's totally fine to this information into to Alias' page, but deleting information as thought it was never written unless someone does extensive research at the library to defend it against you, seems to be just destructive. "Notability" doesn't means Wikipedia only has coverts popular topics, widely known, and relevant the mass market and immediately googlable. Much of the non-consumer software history from the 1980 1990s is on paper, sources that are lost or difficult to get to. What deletion does is erase the collective memory, deleting the collective culture, prevent this information to grow. It's not like removing vanity page, biased or debatable information; it's deleting just a list of facts, things that have happened. Things people might look up with Google in the years to come. I think Wikipedia is the best place to host these. And let's be frank, it has no problem hosting a full description of Stargate episodes or characters, magical characters in Harry Potter semi-obscure actors, or a list round-shaped vegetable; why must software history be quickly erased. lucericr (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I chose those magazines because (with the exception of Byte), they are all aimed at IT managers and IT professionals - not hobbyists and home users. As to what notability means - I go by the definition at WP:NOTABILITY. I can't talk for anyone else, only myself, but my aim is not to erase software history - I just think that it should be held to the same standard as any article. Yes, the references to this software will be more likely than not paper-based. Yes, some of it would be hard to find - but where in the Wikipedia policies does it say that "if resources are hard to find then you can let it have an article anyway"? Also, if this was software that was only developed and in use in the 80s, I'd be more sympathetic, but as this is a piece of software that was still be developed by Formvision at least in 2001 (according to the final reference on the article) - and I presume it was developed beyond that - I'd expect there to be more online references (after all, the WWW became more commonplace when Mosaic was released in 1993), or in magazines in the last 8 years. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This thing is a mess ... oh well, what's a body to do. I guess someone who cares can clean up the talk page. :

Several of you appear to be blithering idiots. Sorry, but truth is truth.Eclipse was a very well-known high-end image editing program before PhotoShop became famous. It is quite simple to find references on the web to substantiate this, if one has the search skills of a third-grader or better. Here's one which took me all of thirty seconds to find:

http://www.design-engine.com/alias/history.html

Alias Eclipse / Alias|Wavefront Eclipse

Alias bought Full Color Publisher and marketed their SGI Irix-based image retouching program, Eclipse. It used a proxy mode and post render, similar to Live Picture, where the brush strokes are recorded during the interactive editing then rendered at high resolution on the full size image in a post process.

Version 3.0 was the first version released by Contex, a Xyvision company, when Xyvision bought Eclipse from Alias|Wavefront in summer 1997. Barco purchased Xyvision since, and Eclipse had been picked up by Formvision, who reported they plan on porting Eclipse to Windows NT on their web site at www.formvision.de. The site was down when I last checked.

A former A|W staffer writes that there was a version of Eclipse that ran on Sun Solaris. That version was built for Japanese reseller Konica, with a Japanese UI.

If you can't handle single paragraph unbiased descriptions of fairly famous software (Eclipse was the tool of several very well-known photographers in the late 90's) then perhaps you'd better shut down this ridiculous travesty of a so-called encyclopaedia Would any of you deleters happen to understand the meaning of the word "encyclopaedia", by any chance ?

Oh, another thirty seconds brought this up :

http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/software/10454-eclipse-imaging-software.html

Hi Nicolaas,

WOW I didn't think this was still around. I was using version 2 of this in about 1996 on SGI machines. It is excellent for creating comps and warping - better than Photoshop is today!!! Then it was called AliasEclipse owned buy the same company that made a tiny fledgeling application called AliasWavefront (its called Maya now and look where that is)!

Unfortunately for the price and the extra features today i'd have to give my Sterling to Adobe. But I still often work on LivePicture or Barco Creator to use other features.

Bill

yeah, never existed, wasn't important enough for an entry in the omniscient wikipedia, can't find *anything* about it. Bah. Mr Chzz appears to have the intellectual perspicacity of a contented ruminant. Samuel Johnson would have none of this nonsense, certainly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The first reference is a 3-paragraph section - hardly significant coverage - if you had several sources like that, I'd be more impressed. The second is from a forum, which is hardly a reliable source. I can't talk for anyone else, but I looked hard (and a lot more than a couple of mins) and couldn't find significant coverage.
- Incidently, no one here has the attitude "yeah, never existed, wasn't important enough for an entry in the omniscient wikipedia, can't find *anything* about it." - no one has suggested that the software didn't exist - we're merely discussion whether it is notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia. Perhaps you need to read the discussion more carefully!
- However, as all of us blithering idiots obviously can't do a search for toffee, I look forward to you finding tons of of good sources of information from reliable sources. I found those two, and discounted them for the reasons I've given. But, please show me what an idiot I am by finding significant coverage in reliable sources! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen minutes worth of looking returns these :

http://www.herbrich.com

http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content?.intl=us&lp=de_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.digitalkamera.de%2fSoftware%2fEclipse%2f1313.aspx

http://www.raymond.cc/forum/freebies/13554-eclipse-for-graphic-design-enthusiasts.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerwoche.de%2Fheftarchiv%2F2000%2F35%2F1077239%2F&sl=de&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

http://translate.google.at/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsoftware.magnus.de%2Fgrafik-video-audio%2Fartikel%2Ffotomontage.html&sl=de&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

Good thing you aren't a professional researcher, you'd starve. As for relevance, since wikipedia seems to think that "used panties" is of earth-shattering importance, a piece of software that was comparable to PhotoShop before PhotoShop existed, used by several famous artists and cost approximately $2,000 dollars US just *might* be considered significant enough to not delete after your excruciatingly thorough fifteen minute search. Just because *you* don't know something certainly does not mean it is not relevant or important.A short email to herr Herbrich might turn up quite a lot more but hey now ! We wouldn't want to delay this important deletion ! After all, wikipedia's (feeble) reputation is at stake here !

Just came across a couple more. You deleters are truly amazing researchers,you know ? Next time I have an Easter Egg hunt I'm going to invite you all. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)jon banquer[reply]

OK

Could you be a bit more precise about the herbrich.com reference - where does it mention Alias Eclipse? I know that your 3rd reference there mentions that he uses it, but his website doesn't mention this - so this website couldn't be used as a reference, as there is no mention of the software.

Sigh

website -> front page -> Creative Concept -> Postproduction

"My equipment consists of Silicon Graphics, Apple and PC computers with ECLIPSE software, a drum scanner and a FIRE transparency plotter -- all terribly high-end expensive devices. By the way, I used to do compositing in conventional labs for 15 years before I took up electronic compositing."

the second one is already a reference on the article (did you actually read the article?)

I'm not all that interested in the article, to tell you the truth. I'm more interested in why some little officious twit (yes, chzz, I mean you) wants to dump a simple, clean, three paragraph article about a piece of software history for no reason.

is a forum - so not counted as a reliable site for Wikipedia's purposes

certainly. But posters in forums can be good leads to other, better sources of material. The fact that mentions of this program *exist* in forums is a good enough indication that the software was known and important enough to avoid deleting it before anyone can add better data. Again, we return to the fact that a certain collection of consonants is an officious, ignorant little twit.

the www.computerwoche.de reference is a good one (I don't know enough to know about the reliability of this website from Wikipedia's point of view), but I'd be quite happy for that to be used as a source for the article Likewise the magnus.de reference is a good source from what I can see.

Bear in mind that most of us are not professional researchers, and never claim to be.

But that's exactly what people *did* claim. The original article was fairly factual, innocuous, and mentioned a program that could very well be a precursor to later, better-known software. There is no bias shown in the initial article, no fanboyizm, no extravagant claims, just some facts about what could be an interesting predecessor to the modern world of 2D computer graphics. So why delete it ?

Apparently because Twit Chzz and a few others "can't find any reliable references" That's about as close as anyone can come to saying "This entry is not worth keeping because *we* cannot find anything about it." -- aka, a claim that chzz is the world's highest authority. If he can't find substantiating proof in thirty seconds then off to the ovens with the article.

Sorry but that's poor reasoning. Especially since you couldn't find a reference on a website that took me all of five minutes - and I'm possibly the world's worst researcher. I start out looking for a copy of "Hello, World !" and end up reading about Harold, the last of the Saxons.

As you are so good at it, and so keen on rescuing the article,

I'm not keen on the article, I think wikipedia is a joke and y'all are pompous fools. This article is a clear example of why I feel that way. There is so much absolute crap on wikipedia, yet some dork with a god complex spends his time deleting a small, reasonable, factual mention of an early, possibly historic piece of software. Why ? Little peepee syndrome ? Is this thing an encyclopedia or a gossip column ? Some crappy rap CD merits a full page of gushing fanboy bootlicking but you feel you responsibly must delete a small unbiased article about a piece of computer history ?

Someone's priorities are pretty skewed around here.

may I suggest that you add text to the article (along with suitable citations including the above), and maybe spend a bit more time finding more references?

I am not totally convinced, but perhaps rather than just being critical about us,

I'm not being critical of "us" -- did you notice that several other people (politely) remarked that deleting this article was not wise ? And our little hero reprimanded them ? I am being critical of a few wannabe banana republic dictators who are not capable of rational thought yet still want to exert their power. Yes, chzz : go jump off a bridge. You're a fool and an imbecile.

you might actually do some editing on the article and convince us with your obviously superior skills.

I'm not sooo interested in Eclipse but yeah. That was the point. Leave the article up. The software is obviously important enough to rate an entry. Perhaps it does belong in a subset of Alias entries. But if you delete it now merely because someone with serious mental health problems wants to throw his weight around, then no one can add more data, dui bu dui ?

I'm assuming that this IP is not your normal editing account, otherwise you have edited on 4 articles (none of them very big edits) that are not connected to this one, and none of which have substantially expanded the article in question.

Yup again. I'm not a wikipedia person. I only do edits when the grammar is so bad I that can't stand it or some "fact" is so misrepresented that I am compelled to get out the keyboard.

Go on, impress us all by expanding this article with lots of extra information and sources! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I can keep the consonantal pseudo-Strangelove with the blue badge of power around his nym from deleting the article I'll be happy enough :P

Maybe I'll send an e-mail to Thomas Herbrich, who apparently still uses the program and could provide more data. That's if we can restrain our lesser wannabe godlings, anyhow. Cheers ! :D 210.22.142.82 (talk) jon banquer

Keep per the presence of at least two reliable sources. This article from Computerwoche and this article from magnus.de provide in-depth reliable coverage about this software. Note to 210.22.142.82 (talk · contribs): please don't make any more personal attacks, or you will be blocked. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking over the submitted references, that's what I concluded also. Full 3rd party reviews from 2 major German computer magazines show notability. They don;t have to be physically added to the article itself before the close. Regardless of the deplorable tone of some of the critique above, the message about the unwillingness to do a proper search was very much to the point. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with rationale of DGG --Milowent (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FringeHold[edit]

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

Delete this promotional page. An internet search yields only several hundred hits for this product, none of which can be used as a reliable secondary source for this article. Fails WP:PRODUCT guideline, so it should be merged to the article about the company or deleted (no company article currently exists on WP). Mind matrix 14:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable product placement page. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can not find any reliable sources that discuss this product. There is no assertion of notability in the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:Advertising violation --WngLdr34 (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to indicate this product warrants an article. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arnis Rubins[edit]

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

Author removed PROD, claiming that he passed WP:ATHLETE by playing for Prestatyn Town. However, the Welsh Premier League is not a fully-pro league as per this list of pro leagues and neither is the Latvian league. -- Big Dom 13:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. -- Big Dom 14:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overlooking the fact that the article seems to have been placed here by his agent trying to find him a new club, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. The Welsh Premier League is not fully professional, in fact it has no full-time players in it at all. The article's creator has added the Latvian league to the list of fully pro leagues (without a source) but specifically noted that it became fully pro in 2009. Even if this is true, it doesn't help this player's case, as he last played in Latvia in 2008 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability and is also written like an advert Spiderone 14:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Player is actually more known than 75% of articles we have on Latvian leagues and players, he is actually a member of both Youth national teams for his age groups. Besides he has technically played for fully professional clubs, and Latvian league has been operating as professional since LMT became a sponsor in 2006. www.lff.lv. That wiki list on professional clubs is totally out of date and incorrect. Belarus First division :) I think its as professional as a badly run pub league. 18:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.180.44 (talk • contribs)

Youth caps don't make him notable. Also, the LFF website doesn't say anything about being professional. Spiderone 19:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

He is as notable playrs from Latvia get. If that is the case then If we go into Baltic leagues and delete all players who have only played in their own country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.180.44 (talk • contribs)

I think someone like Vitālijs Astafjevs would dispute that playing semi-pro football in front of 200 people in Wales is as notable as players from Latvia can hope to be....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I suppose you can't expect many 18 year olds achieve the set out athlete notability. This should be enough. 18:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC).

Comment - Why does his age matter? You either meet the notability requirements or you don't. Spiderone 18:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have struck out this comment because it was made by the same IP user who made the first keep vote. Just because this user is the player's agent, doesn't mean he can vote twice. -- Big Dom 18:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, age is irrelevant. The user seems to be saying that it is unreasonable to expect youngsters to pass WP:ATHLETE (is it really? see Luke Freeman for example) they should be allowed to have articles anyway, just because they're young. In that case I'm off to write an article on my son. He doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE but hey, he's only 5 so I reckon he should be allowed an article anyway ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully-pro level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of third party media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 09:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecstasy (2010 film)[edit]

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

Self promotional article (original author was the writer) about a non-notable future film... fails WP:CRYSTAL, as well as WP:NFF, WP:V, and WP:COI... Adolphus79 (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this one doesn't even make IMDB! Blatant self-promotion. --Tris2000 (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why are people using Wiki as a tool to promote their projects?--WngLdr34 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yeah, why are people using Wikipedia to promote their projects? COUGH JBsupreme (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this movie features Charley Bewley of Twilight, which many readers would be interested in seeing his new projects —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondlaw (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Raymond, we are not a mechanism for promotion and advertising, nor are we a fan site for Mr. Bewley or any actor in any film. A blurb in Mr. Bewley's article about this is warranted, but not this article at this time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The above editor Raymondlaw created this article. Raymond Law is the producer and co-writer of the film. The fact that Raymond Law is the producer and co-writer was removed from the article by IP user 76.94.129.138 fifty minutes after the article was tagged for Conflict of interest. In this edit on another AfD discussion Raymondlaw referred to an edit by 76.94.129.138 in the first person, implying that 76.94.129.138 is Raymonlaw; this suggests that the removal of COI information may have been done by Raymondlaw. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See this sockpuppet report for confirmation of this. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - another spam by User:Raymondlaw for a non-notable work in progress. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Film with no current notability. No prejudice to recreation if it becomes notable per WP:FILM. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. No coverage. Even what the author of the article chose to call the "Official ECSTASY Website" is just a Facebook account (though the fact was hidden by giving an indirect link which redirected to FaceBook.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and allow back if and when WP:NF can be met. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Journalism. Sandstein 17:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Professional journalism[edit]

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

This article has no purpose, references or factual basis. Moreover, if it were brought up to any standard it would merely duplicate Journalism or Journalist. It takes as its apparent raison d'etre the idea that professional journalism is a form of news reporting (which it isn't, generally news reporting is an aspect of journalism, usually professional), that it started in the 20th century (no, more like the 18th century, if not in ancient China), in the United States (no, probably Europe). I think it has been put together without any real knowledge of the topic, and no references are given for any of the assertions made. I can find no articles for "professional tennis", "professional golf", "professional teaching" etc. IMO, this article was a bad idea from the start. ( Bluehotel (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information could be merged into This section of the Article on Jounalism. It makes a valid point that the role of Journalist was standardised to improve advertising revenue, but it may not require a separate page to make it. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Journalism this is redundant, merge what is good delete the rest of it--WngLdr34 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Rich Farmbrough, 21:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Keeping Up with the Kardashians. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Jenner[edit]

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

Non-notable minor child of a notable athlete. Disputed PROD. Sunject fails all inclusion criteria. L0b0t (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:not notable, no sources to back up the article. A search of the subject found no reliable sources, just a couple of tv sites. Also subject is still a child. Martin451 (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keeping Up with the Kardashians. If she's an character in a notable TV show, her name is a likely search target. Nyttend (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kendall Jenner has already been redirected to Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Keeping Up with the Kardashians. She isn't notable enough to have her own page but people may search for her in relation to "Keeping Up with the Kardashians". For similar reasons, after this page is decided we should look about if deleting/redirecting Rob Kardashian is necessary.24.190.34.219 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of previously deleted material) by Gwen Gale. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Jenner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-norable minor child of notable athlete. PROD removed but subject still fails all inclusion criteria. L0b0t (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:not notable, no sources to back up the article. A search of the subject found no reliable sources, just a couple of tv sites. Also subject is still a child. Martin451 (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just tagged for speedy, as a previous AfD resulted in delete. Martin451 (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited, and does not yet appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Worth mentioning in parental article. Edison (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ogaden Republican Army/ORA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ogaden Republican Army/ORA

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

unsourced article that though containing reference numbers are just numbers without supporting documentation. Furthermore after trying to find out whether this group exists can not find any evidence at all. Considering it makes reference to an incident in November 2009 may just be a complete hoax. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating identical ORA-Ogaden –– Lid^(Talk) 13:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it to Ogaden Republican Army/ORA. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has no sources, clearly violating WP:Verifiability--WngLdr34 (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The numbers and the lack of layout give a strong indication that this is a Copyvio. --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 13:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say redirect to Ogaden, but there's no real proof that this exists besides a few sketchy Google hits. If there actually is a minor and reliable reference I would support redirect plus merger of any verifiable content. Joshdboz (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible hoax, see this and this by 77.167.242.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) plus the youtube video that is the first hit on Google. Even if not there are no sources for it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teddymandering[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Per http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2345780/posts, some caller just coined this on a radio call-in show six days ago, the day before the article was posted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is a neologism lacking reliable sources.--otherl left 12:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coined by a caller to the Howie Carr show? Sorry, megadittos this ain't. Mandsford (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel... a sort of pressure... as if someone has violated WP:NPOV clearly --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism, with some soapboxing thrown in. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soapboxing neologism, fails notability. Lacks reliable sources. Edison (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment on the talk page. Scott Ritchie (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard neologism. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per Mandsford. The term was only created a week ago (I was going to add the link, but it's from a blacklisted site). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from everything mentioned above, the article inccurately implies this is unusual behaviour for politicians. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism whose notability is not established. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow! ArcAngel (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This here AfD is famous now (sorta): Wikipedia: 20 articles earmarked for deletion, Telegraph (UK) --Milowent (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooo, I've been quoted in the Telegraph. I guess that makes me notable too. Off to write my article, then. And if anyone tries to delete it, I'll just let the Telegraph know, and then they'll probably write an article about Largoplazo's antics, and then I'll be notable for sure. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Devine[edit]

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

Has only received trivial coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFails WP:PORNBIO. Edison (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The linux.com article indeed is more than non-trivial coverage but unfortunately for the keep !votes, this cannot suffice on its own. As such, there currently is no consensus between those who think notability exists and those who make (somewhat templated) "non notable"-delete !votes. A merge/redirect should be discussed though if further expansion is not possible. Regards So Why 08:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ERC (IRC client)[edit]

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

Non-notable software subject that was declined speedy deletion. Miami33139 (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and list in Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. We don't seem to have a List of Emacs packages article; it's not significant enough to mention in Emacs#Extensible. —Korath (Talk) 11:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my opinion this is CSD A7 material: no notability is asserted because it is not notable to begin with, as it lacks non-trivial coverage from any sort of reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I can find significant coverage for this software, where's the problem? It helps to search for Emacs IRC client. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your Swedish Google search is not an indicator of notability at all. Not in the least. Find and cite non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications, please. Or this will be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, Google search is no indicator and unsourced software article should be deleted. What is your point? Have you used the help I gave to investigate the subject? The nominator failed to show compelling reasons for deletion and mass-nominates IRC related articles. So do you fail to bring forward even a single piece of evidence that would diminish the references in the article, btw you refer to A7 which does not apply to software articles. This has been discussed yesterday in other Afd-nomintations you were involved ([34][35]). Could you please update your vote and explain your point of view more detailed? 83.254.210.47 (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability is asserted - the article itself should assert why it is more notable than the rnk and file of IRC software, seeing as IRC software is not inherently notable. A wide range of sources provide verification of the subject's claim to notability and are not the notability in and of themselves. (You could get around the issue by adding the adjective "widely-discussed" to the article and then using your sources to support it.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are several references of third-party coverage added to the article, including a linux.com article. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources you refer to amount to non-trivial. JBsupreme (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero significant non trivial coverage in reliable sources. Triplestop x3 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#ERC. The Linux.com article [36] is a valid source per WP:RS and I think it goes a long way towards establishing notability for this subject. If the article is to remain a sub-stub 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) 04:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reviews count as significant coverage. If it wasn't notable, they'd not mention it at all. Sourceforge says it had 11,072 downloads, I think that just for the most recent build though. No way to tell how many people have downloaded older builders. The software has been out since 2001. Dream Focus 23:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Linux.com source found by Tothwolf is enough to indicate notability and allows this article to pass WP:V. Cunard (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found since nomination. --Milowent (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources? The review in Linux.com or the download counter on Sourceforge? These so-called "sources" are laughable. :( JBsupreme (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - JBsupreme, worse case scenario we should" "[k]eep per WP:IAR as this article clearly is improving the quality of Wikipedia." ;)
    However, in all seriousness, I cannot see what is wrong with the review from Linux.com. It provides enough coverage about ERC (three paragraphs of information) to verify the information in the article. Per Tothwolf, I would not object to a merge to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. Cunard (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - JBsupreme, given the disruption you and Miami33139 willfully created as a group (and appeared to be enjoying whilst doing so) that was extremely well documented on AN/I (to the point where it required its own subpage), your continued false assertions are unlikely to do you any good at all here. You and Miami33139 may have thought you would mass-AfD articles to "get back at Tothwolf for getting other articles kept at AfD etc" but the only thing you managed to accomplish is to upset lots of other community members and bring the spotlight upon yourselves.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tothwolf your constant personal attacks are sickening. Put a sock in it, please. JBsupreme (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Most of the delete !votes base their reasoning on OR concerns, which is not a valid policy based argument for deletion but for cleanup, something AFD is not for. As shown by Ihcoyc (talk · contribs), this is indeed a topic that can be a sourced to reliable third-party sources, which means that it's possibly encyclopedic (in accordance to WP:LIST). The counter-argument by Uncle G that there is no Proprietary alternatives to free software article is no argument since noone prohibits such an article to be created - if reliable, third-party sources covered this topic. The POV concerns mentioned by Cybercobra should be addressed though and the list might benefit to be renamed and/or reworked. Again though, this is not a reason for deletion. Since none of the delete !votes were based on policy reasons for deletion (but rather cleanup or discussion), consensus is to keep. Regards So Why 12:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free alternatives to proprietary software[edit]

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

This article is entirely unreferenced and is original research as it is designed. It functions as promotional advocacy for FOSS. Plenty of the examples (in all columns) are poor choices because it is compiled as OR by any editor who wants to add their favorite software into it. Miami33139 (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haakon (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If the wave says Delete I'll be with them, but it can be cleaned up. Really weak keep here. --WngLdr34 (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let me explain my vote, since this discussion is clearly not reaching consensus on the issue as a whole. I don't (necessarily) agree with the OR-part, but I do think this article (or at least, the current style) is "promotional advocacy for FOSS". There is only one column for "Proprietary software", while there are three for "Free software". It is asif the 'switch' can only be made from proprietary to free! Also, the very idea of this list is flawed: Comparing software just on free-ness is bad. There's a zillion "Word processing" programs, like Notepad and EDIT.com and some 1980 ones too. What good could this list do in comparison terms? I'd compare important features, and free-ness is (for most people) NOT one of them. And of course, when only comparing free-ness, "free" is always better! So yes, this list is BIASED towards "Free software", and therefore un-wikipedia-worthy IMHO. --DanielPharos (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's certainly a better rationale than per nom but I think all of that can be addressed by improving the article. For that fact, why don't we start by renaming it to something like "Index of software by platform and license"? See Category:Indexes of articles. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would support a full rewrite like that. Since the article would have to be be completely redone, and the title changed, it would basically be a delete and recreate-somewhere-else, I'm unwilling to change my vote unless somebody volunteers to do it. (I'm not familiar (enough) with most software mentioned.) --DanielPharos (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't even think it would require a full rewrite. You would also want to start with this one anyway to preserve the edit history for GFDL purposes. I wouldn't mind assisting with this one but it isn't one I personally want to take on all by myself (I've got several large comparison articles currently on my plate already). --Tothwolf (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Rewrite Ah, I see. It's more 'restructuring' than rewriting. I'm not a good writer, so I'm not willing to risk getting burned by such a debated article (this AfD proves it's a sensitive issue). Changing my vote though. --DanielPharos (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly. Other editors have already gone to the trouble to gather up and classify the software currently listed (which going by my past experiences had to have been an enormous amount of work) so it is mainly just a matter of restructuring the presentation of the material. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is for sure notable, and the rationales for inclusion of programs in the table are the articles themselves (and the categories they belong to). --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful not to misplace your notability. The topic of Linux adoption is notable, and software paths like this are used to plan Linux adoption. This list of charts under discussion is not notable and, as written, only serves to advocate for FOSS adoption. It does not need to exist on Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see the table as "advocating", it is just...a table. It is not saying that the free alternative is better or that should be preferred. Such tables and comparisons are routinely produced by FOSS advocates for sure, but the list looks objective. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 17:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you say the same if the article ran counter to the prevailing ethos of Wikipedia and was entitled Proprietary alternatives to free software? I suspect that you wouldn't. That the bias in the article's scope matches a widespread bias of Wikipedia editors doesn't mean that the article is unbiased. Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good example, but well, yes, that name could be easily a redirect to this article (or v/v). We can move the article to a more neutral wording, like "Table of software by license type and functionality", or something on these lines, if preferred. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well-written, but the opening line alone indicates its purpose, an essay filled with original research. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article title is POV, and article as a whole is essentially a forum post, not an encyclopedic entry. ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The underlying topic would appear to be easily notable.[37][38][39][40] I suspect the chief objection is that this is actually only a large list of proprietary software and free alternatives. If the topic itself is notable and can be expanded, then the list is an obviously relevant addition to it, and could be spun off to a more appropriate title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is neutrality of the article's very scope. See above. This can be fixed by finding a neutral scope. But that hasn't been done, yet. Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Couldn't the neutral scope be more prose in the existing article Linux adoption? Miami33139 (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - With a second look at the sources provided by Ihcoyc, I really do think better/more prose in Linux adoption is where proponents of this should take their efforts. Particularly that second reference to the essay by the guy at IBM, the essence of his column is that while these FOSS bits of software are alternatives, they are not equivalents - and that concept is a huge gaping hole in this list of charts - but one that would very gracefully be handled by prose at Linux adoption. Miami33139 (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't understand how the article on Linux adoption can have something to do with a table listing software according to two coordinates (function and type of license), of which most run on non-Linux systems. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST. The list may be redundant, but redundancy in lists can be an asset. It's not meaningless, it has potential organisational value, and it's well presented. Should be retained. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just tons of original research here. JBsupreme (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs to be recast as a list by tweaking the already short lead, and possibly by renaming the page. As a list article, it provides good information that is very useful to readers interested in the topic. The page contains only two external links (in the External links section), so the page really is a list of links to Wikipedia articles and is original research only in the sense that someone has gathered all the information into one page. However, the page is not WP:OR because there is no original thought, analysis or synthesis in the article. WP:OR does not prohibit the compilation of a list; for example, see List of software engineering topics and Index of Windows games (A). I mentioned this at WT:WikiProject Software/Free Software Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but leave open to re-creation in the future. In its present form, this list is unquestionably original research. But there actually are reliable sources that discuss specific free and/or open source alternatives to specific proprietary software applications. This could be a valid list if it was rewritten from the ground up, sticking with what the sources say. *** Crotalus *** 21:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. Per Crotalus, I think this could be sourced. In general, we don't delete articles because their current sucks Hobit (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stand by my keep; however I remind the closing admin that, in the worst case, there is always the opportunity to incubate articles of potential but problematic at present. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 08:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how the nom could possibly consider this to be OR. Each entry is clearly either Proprietary software or Free software. Each entry is clearly a specific type of software. There is nothing at all wrong with grouping these in a table by software type and license. The only way something like this could become OR is if it were stated that one particular type of software was better than the other.
WP:NNC states: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight."
While the notability guideline may apply to the individual entries listed in these tables for the purposes of determining if each should have it's own standalone article, it does not in any way limit how these articles may be linked and listed elsewhere.
From where I sit, this article appears to me to be a typical article index with the benefits of listing both proprietary and free software side by side.
--Tothwolf (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The page seems biased not only in its title but its fundamental presentation (why is free software an "alternative" rather than simply an "option" or "equivalent"? Why couldn't the page be about software generally?), and I'm someone who supports FLOSS. This page basically duplicates List of open source software packages except it adds in equivalent proprietary software and a POV How-To spin. The only way I could see this being saved was if it was transformed into some sort of Outline of software or similar on the neutral topic of software generally, with the free-ness of the software merely (but validly) a comparison/organization axis, or if its content was distributed to the individual articles on each type of software (e.g. office suite, database, browser), where lists of software of that type, categorized by licensing, would be appropriate. This is essentially "List of software by genre" with a well-intentioned POV (that I'm sympathetic to), but nonetheless a POV, spin on it. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Less than five lines in the article fit your description of POV, and those lines can easily be deleted or reworked (and the title can be changed). The core of the article is not POV: it is simply a categorized list/index/outline of software, arranged by application type. Examples of its usefulness can be seen by searching for "FTP" or "PDF" or "ZIP" which occur in the article we are discussing, but not in List of open source software packages (and there are many other examples). Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of open source software packages. That's a deficiency in the other article then, a reason to improve it with the content from this article. And the problem is that changing the title to something more neutral would be quite a fundamental shift in the page; which I would support, but it seems unlikely to happen. I suppose I'm saying there should be no article by this title or a similar one, but the content in the article is perfectly salvagable. After re-reading the discussion, I find myself more or less in agreement with DanielPharos. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and refocus per Tothwolf to something like Talk:Free alternatives to proprietary software#Move to Index of software by platform and license?; or delete as POV marketing. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-07t09:59z

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

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

The result was speedy delete - no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Design, Analysis and Tools for Integrated Circuits and Systems[edit]

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

No indications of notability in the article, plus tagged as a COI Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not yet notable, a workshop that seems to have been organised first in 2008. — Miym (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 - organisation whose notability is not asserted in the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cromagnon (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The Real Libs-speak politely 08:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - This band clearly satisfies #5, "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).", as both of their albums listed have been released by ESP-disk. Luminifer (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question-Since you are knowledgeable on the subject why weren't these albums detailed in the article when it was created? The Real Libs-speak politely 14:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not knowledgeable about the subject; I just looked at the article, saw the references at the bottom, and clicked on them. All the details are at allmusic. In fact, if you look at the creator's talk page, you can see me thanking them for creating this article about which I previously knew nothing. Luminifer (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've notified the creator for you. Also, I'm listing this in music discussions. Luminifer (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep- passes 5.Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 20:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Luminifer
Keep - per WP:BAND criterion 5 - has released two more albums on an important indie label. I still think that policy is too inclusive but that doesn't change the fact it's current policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no idea who this band is, but I went to the article looking for info because one of their songs is #163 on Pitchfork's best of the 60s list. [41] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coolsmile[edit]

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

DELETE. Frankly, I feel that this is a speedy deletion candidate as no notability is asserted, but in any case it lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. This entire category really needs to go save for one or two articles. :-( JBsupreme (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (A7) article does not assert notability. Delete - article does not assert notability and therefore is unable to meet WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it meets the spirit of WP:CSD#A7 in that it makes not assertions of importance or notability at all, the CSD criteria are meant to be interpreted strictly and they don't include products so I am not not comfortable speedy deleting it myself. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:Advertising and non notable as others has shown. --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a software directory Miami33139 (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand: I can find significant coverage for this software, where's the problem? Searching for French keywords reverals additional sources, e.g. solid DMOZ reference. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to add the sources you've found here or to the article (or preferably both) so that it can be verified that (a) they exist, (b) they are reliable sources and (c) that they actually verify the article (e.g. they aren't just passing mentions). Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem, I added both DMOZ references to the article. From the hits I found it looks like Coolsmile is popular in France. There is to my knowledge not a lot of IRC software originating from France, is this possibly the most popular French IRC web chat? It used to be CGI:IRC, which is not actively extended any more and has fallen behind feature-wise. Perhaps we can include this AfD in a France related deletion discussion to get better information. Merci! 83.254.210.47 (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DMOZ, as a user contributed open-content site, is not a WP:RS. Miami33139 (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me correct this, DMOZ is not a open-editable site [42] and for example Google uses it for page rank determination (this has been discussed at AfD 2 days before). Please come forward with some evidence. For example what have you searched for, how many hits did you get, what was the best reference you could find? Do you have a background on the subject and (independently from any prior knowledge) what are the 4 most prominent French IRC clients you have identified in your research? Please prove you researched the topic properly for the purpose of establishing a meaningful notability discussion. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#Coolsmile. 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) 04:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fitim Haliti[edit]

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

The player appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Contested PROD. Spiderone 07:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 07:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 07:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (A7), article does not assert notability. Beyond that, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, playing in a notable European top-level league. Eldumpo (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Where is your evidence for this? He has played in this league but it doesn't make him "notable". All he has is the usual Soccerway, Transfermarkt, Playerhistory stuff which is not enough for an article on an encyclopaedia. Spiderone 08:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteUnless you have evidence of this player playing a game in UEFA competition it's deletion as the league he plays in runs Semi-pro. Govvy (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Note on the closing time: Keeping this open to compensate the time this was NAC closed is highly unlikely to have yielded a different result and as such, would be a pointless thing to do (spirit of WP:SNOW). The subject has been demonstrated to be of notability and coverage in multiple sources. And while winning awards might not transfer to notability directly, winning many of them and being the most popular specimen of its kind usually does establish notability (together with other sources which are shown to exist). Regards So Why 12:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BitchX[edit]

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

DELETE. This software is clearly not notable. Yes, there are three "references" cited, but please do not be fooled. They are all passing mentions of the product about how easily exploited it is. And by passing I mean two sentences a pop with exception to the third "source" which is really just a security bulletin (email) from the Slackware Security Team. [43] Fail, fail, fail. JBsupreme (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, I passed on nominating this earlier, but since nominated, it should go. Miami33139 (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - (A7) article does not assert notability. Failing that, it doesn't pass WP:N due to not establishing notability with multiple significant secondary sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see the criteria for CSD A7. A7 does not apply to software. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with caveat: I am not a tech guru, but wikipedia is full of similar articles about IRC clients, bitorrent clients, etc., so consensus seems to be clear that such articles should exist. (Just look at Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients and the vast number of blue links in it, that took serious geek time to prepare). And I did some searching and found numerous references to this being a popular linux IRC client, which I added to article--so A7 Speedy is not appropriate--and that seems notable in terms of these kinds of articles. --Milowent (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of these client articles are being looked at for notability claims. They might not be here next week which makes a thin thread to hang their existence on. There is no functioning definition of notable for software, which means every one of them ends up at AfD, and usually decided based on a diversion between claims of non-notable and claims of ILIKEIT. What you have said is a valid point for discussion, but the existence of similar articles is being contested individually, but also en-masse. Does this article, independently, pass the notability criteria for inclusion? Miami33139 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on multiple sources citing this client as one of the most popular IRC clients, I'd say yes.--Milowent (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A7 is completely inappropriate for this one. There are six pages on google scholar for this, which is good enough for me. I (surprisingly) did not find a good article that was devoted to the topic of only this program, but this is not our standard. There is a lot of non-exclusive coverage in the google news and google books searches. The program has ranked in multiple readers' choice awards for Linux Magazine. --Karnesky (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - my argument was put on the basis that whether or not the subject is notable, it's not asserted in the article. Nothing in the article suggests why this software is more notable than any other software, and as such it can't pass WP:N. If it's won awards in Linux Magazine, that may well found a claim of notability - would you consider adding that information, with citations, to the article? Thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A7 is reserved specifically for "individuals, animals, organisations, and web content." Some admins have viewed software (and other products) as either organizations or as web content, but many such deletions are overturned & at least kicked back to AfD. In any case, speedy deletion is no longer possible due to the calls for keeping this.
  - Awards do not equate to notability; many noteworthy things have not won awards. The fact that multiple third party sources have found it worthy to note the popularity of this particular program means that is, by definition, notable. --Karnesky (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CNN said it was a popular one for Linux. What's wrong with all the other references? A lot of people use this, and thus it should be covered. Dream Focus 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Solid references, historically valueable as BitchX overtook ircII as the most popular Linux IRC client in the 90s, there even was a newsgroup alt.irc.bitchx.[44] Nominator failed to familiarise with the subject. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- omgz, there was an alt. usenet group in the 90s? That is an amazing claim to notability. Everyone who used Usenet in the 90s surely recognizes the importance of a piece of software having a dedicated group in alt.* Miami33139 (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please elaborate. How important is the existance of a newsgroup? How many other IRC clients have you identified of having a newsgroup? Since you voted delete without any evidence in this AfD, do you have a background on the subject and (independently from any prior knowledge) which are the 4 most prominent IRC Linux clients you have identified in your research? Please play with open cards, so we can have a meaningful notability discussion. Cheers! 83.254.210.47 (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Elaboration: The importance of the existence of an alt. newsgroup in the 1990s was absolutely zero. Creation was unmoderated, anyone could create any group with any name at any time. When permanently archiving usenet servers came online, it meant alt.johnnie.eats.boogers existed forever. Miami33139 (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - actually i remember being asked to support the creation of some alt.newsgroups in 1996, it wasn't automatic, though i agree its existence is ~~automatic~~ not proof of notability. --Milowent (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let me correct this, newsgroup creation is not unmoderated [45] and due absence of a central server configuration needs to be coordinated for distribution. Please answer my questions and bring forward some evidence, how many Unix IRC clients had an own newsgroup (let's see in the late 1990s we had ircII, Bitchx and what else)? The existance of a small hand full newsgroup would in my opinion underline the prominent status of BitchX. Please prove you familiarised with the subject for the purpose of establishing a meaningful notability discussion. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while i remember that this used to be a very important irc client in the 90s (and i even used to use it), i do not think the article lives up to wikipedia's core standards of notability via third party, reliable sources. it's unfortunate that this piece of IRC/internet must become...history, but wikipedia is not meant to be an archive of all marginally popular software from the 90s. this article, in its current state, with its current sources, should be deleted per wikipedia policy. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, wikipedia is an already an archive of marginally popular things from the dawn of history through the 1990s (and 2000s). No policy dictates the deletion of the article that I am aware of.--Milowent (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. --Karnesky (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that notability is not temporary. Not that it matters as this software product doesn't appear to have ever fit the bill of "notable" under the Wikipedia defined terms of such. JBsupreme (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're beyond it in this AfD, but even WP:N is only a guideline that is "primarily advisory." Based only on the multiple sources I added yesterday confirming the popularity of this client (and I can see there are more references out there about the client, I spent minimal time), I don't see how deleting this article improves the project.--Milowent (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really. And how does keeping it improve the project? Should we apply favoritism to this one article because a few of us like it? We certainly don't do that for porn star articles. Lots of people like/love porn stars too. JBsupreme (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked first, so you answer first, JB. :-) How does deletion improve wikipedia? I am not saying that the entire slew of IRC client articles nominated for AfD (for which I cannot tell if any research was done before the noms were made) should be kept, as I only looked into this one. This is not a case of WP:ILIKEIT because I had never heard of BitchX before yesterday; I judged it based on what I could learn externally. --Milowent (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has book sources and other sources. 1 2 Antonio López ^(talk) 20:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major unix terminal IRC client, mentioned in quite a few sources such as those mentioned by others and in the article. Slightly ignoring the rules in that most of the coverage isn't in huge depth, but with the justification that not a lot of people write about unix terminal IRC clients (they're not the sexiest topic). --Cybercobra (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The fact that not many people write about unix terminal IRC clients may simply be evidence that unix terminal IRC clients are inherently non-notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FUTON bias
Charalabidis, Alex (1999-12-15). "Unix Clients: BitchX". The Book of IRC: The Ultimate Guide to Internet Relay Chat (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. pp. 44 –&#32, 45. ISBN 1-886411-29-8.
--Tothwolf (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - so there is one chapter of one obscure book from a publisher that specializes in "geek" books [[46]] about bitchx . that is not what i'd call overwhelming widespread or independent coverage. the notability just doesn't seem to be there, so i must remain with my original vote of delete Theserialcomma (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The author apparently used BitchX as a sample application for using IRC, so it gets multiple minor mentions and some discussion. There is some notability evidence there, because authors tend to want to demonstrate products that people actually use. It is also kind of like the book "The Book of Drainage: The Ultimate Guide to Digging Ditches" describing that they used Model Y of Brand X shovels. We would not base a Wikipedia article for either Model Y or Brand X based on that book. It is a step in the right direction, but not convincing by itself. Miami33139 (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's certainly not the case but others can always double check the book mentioned above for themselves. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On 2 Oct, KoshVorlon closed this as a non-admin closure as speedy keep: "The result was RESULT -- Keep. This is notable." Apparently the close was reverted because speedy keep was not appropriate, but I figured page should reflect this editor's view. (note I previously !voted above, I don't intend this to be seen as a 2nd vote for myself) --Milowent (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE BEFORE CLOSING: due to attempts to speedy close this AFD which stinted discussion for three days, the AFD should remain open until the 9th of October which would make it open for the full 7 days. See history for info.--Otterathome (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not. Check the history before taking the above at face value. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit history appears to indicate that the two NACs that have taken place were in effect for 16 hours, 18 minutes and 34 minutes respectively. That doesn't seem to be anywhere close to 3 days. Given the discussion on AN/I and the fact that sources were infact readily available, easy to find, and the fact that all of the above delete !votes (with the exception of DustFormsWords) are from people directly involved in the AN/I discussion (two of whom seem to clearly be working as a single entity within this group of mass-AfD nominations) I myself would not be opposed to a speedy/snow keep close. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep [47]! Yarcanox (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Moss[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax because Google turns up a mere seven hits for "Edmund Moss" and "Indonesia" together -- and none of them show both terms in the same context. Speedy was declined (I used the wrong criterion because at the time I didn't realize it was a hoax), so I brought it here. (And the article says Indonesians don't have birthdays? Wasn't that a clue?) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It probably is a hoax - but even if it wasn't, WP:BLP demands that unsourced statements on biographies of living people be immediately deleted, which in this case would have the effect of blanking the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparent hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably hoax, if not, it seems to lack any kind of notability Chzz ► 08:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on not having birthdays - this is a cultural thing. Some Indonesians not having birthdays is well known at the DWP according to my husband. They assign 1/1/year. Indonesia is home to several cultures. My grandmother was Chinese and did not know her real birthday as she forgot the Chinese calendar date which a friend used to work out for her. Sometimes it was in October, sometimes November. Also in Saudi Arabia girls used to not have their births recorded so some may not have known their birthday. We just take it for granted that birthdays are celebrated. Anrawel. No comment on the unreferenced biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.76.45 (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. I have to admit, the article creator was creative with the no birthday's in Indonesia reference. ArcAngel (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UK Tabloid Coverage Refers to this AfD: [48] --Milowent (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the Daily Telegraph is not a tabloid. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, i guess it is a broadsheet, technically. Where does it fall on reputation scale among UK papers, btw? --Milowent (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raptor Jesus (meme)[edit]

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

Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raptor Jesus (Result: Delete).

Article has been recreated recently and is a copy of the above article, albeit under a new name. Since the previous AFD was in 2005, I am renominating the article for deletion instead of a G4 speedy delete.

Topic seems not to have reliable sources with regards to the topics popularity, leading me to believe that the topic in not notable. A quick Google search turned no links up that would pass Links normally to be avoided.

(If the result of this discussion is keep, the article should be moved to Raptor Jesus)

G.A.S ^talk 04:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —G.A.S ^talk 04:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —G.A.S ^talk 05:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Evisceration per nom. rarr.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ive done some google searches, by the way, and could not find any coverage outside of blogs, humorous sites, ephemera. when a band of this name releases their second album, we'll create an article, so maybe fanboys could start practicing. "meme" is not the same as "notable" outside of moms basement, unless you consider meme as a WIDELY used idea spreading like a gene, like, say, "Military domination of the world by the US". all this spoken by a card carrying (former) d&d playing, (current) star trek/monty python quoting, too white and nerdy, xkcd reading, slashdotting son of an effin rocket scientist. oh, gotta go take out the trash...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WHOSE RESPONSIBLE THIS? - by which of course I mean Delete. 4Chan is about as far from a reliable source of anything as you can get; come back when you can provide commentary on the meme from a variety of independent secondary sources. At the moment if fails WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: just tidied up the article to improve the English, and added some citation needed templates. Still fails WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No !vote from me, I love Raptor Jesus. Some form of coverage can be found at Crave Online magazine but I'll let everyone else be the judge as to whether it constitutes non-trivial coverage. Just as Raptor Jesus will one day cast judgement upon you. JBsupreme (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Over 9000 Ghits!!11eleven~~Delete fails to meet general notability guidelines; I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. Also lacks tits and should GTFO. Chzz ► 09:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer inspection of the deletion log, I recommend blacklisting the title as well. G.A.S^talk 10:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not with you on the blacklist. This is a genuine meme; I think it's absolutely possible to establish its notability, and if it's not possible now it may be at some time in the future. The issue at the moment is merely that that notability is not established by reliable sources within the article. Let's leave open the possibility of someone doing it better in the future. - DustFormsWords (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Noted. Though I had to put the option on the table considering that the article has been speedy deleted 7 times already (see WP:SALT). G.A.S ^talk 11:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as much as I love raptor Jesus, memes and other flavors of the month are not Wiki-material, UNLESS they are reported in mainstream/verifiable sources such as Lolcats--WngLdr34 (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't matter if Raptor Jesus is deleted, he will rise again (probably over 9000 times). --Alchemist Jack (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it really needed to act like a meme spewing spambot here? Can't we all act like somewhat mature people or am I going to get a dose of the daily meme of the week here? --WngLdr34 (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I was originally going to make my comment by way of a humorously subtitled video of Hitler but thought better of it. But to the point, I don't think comedy is inimicable to a rational, clearly put argument. And taking something like the deletion of Raptor Jesus too seriously would itself risk turning Wikipedia into farce. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of the page I have added a semi notable website that has a small section of raptor jesus ( as posted by JBsupreme )and I also Strongly suggesest that it should not be deleted. If it is not then the chance of raptor Jesus appearing in a more notable chance is highly likely since it the chance of it getting in a note worthy position without a Wikipedia page is just beside nill. I also think that if my page is to be deleted then the subject of rapor jesus should certainly NOT be blacklisted due the fact that someone may find new sources and do a better job on it. Fanoffans --Fansoffans (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. you dont get WP AT ALL. this is not a place to help less notable subjects become notable. we DO NOT WANT THAT RESPONSIBILITY. I love raptor jesus, but until brit hume discusses him, it appears to be relatively nonnotable. and its NOT YOUR PAGE. and I AM SHOUTING. PLEASE read wp policies at your leisure and try to understand. Look, i love going to 4chan occasionally and revelling in juvenile humor (and of course for the articles), but that is not what we do HERE. except behind the scenes, where its clearly delineated as NOT articlespace. and im smiling as i say this (damn the emoticons, full english ahead!)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not trying to use Wikipedia as an advertising site for an internet meme I am just saying that it increases the chance of notability, I fully agree that non notable subjects should not be here but I disagree that Raptor Jesus is not notable as the O RLY meme and other memes have just a little more noticeably. Also I understand that it is not MY page but surely you must agree after making it you feel some attachment to it as you to do to most things one makes.Furthermore I understand that its not what you do HERE since most people can see and its not what I am trying to do HERE either. Fanoffans --82.40.112.172 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the user above me ( Fanoffans ) has stated I also agree that it should not be deleted or black listed as raptor Jesus is notable just no notable sites have covered it. Anyone can see if they type into Google that raptor Jesus is a popular internet meme and does belong on Wikipedia for the average Joe who is looking to find out what it is all about. so I STRONGLY DISAGREE with this being deleted --KSI Geneticblizzard (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines, since you are new to Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the argument that you have just made, that the world outside of Wikipedia has yet to document this, is a strong argument for Wikipedia not having an article about it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, and it does not include things that have yet to actually be properly documented parts of the corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - NOTE: Just for the sake of arguments "yet to actually be properly documented parts of the corpus of human knowledge" Would this not mean that everything in human existence should not be on Wikipedia since at one point everything was once "yet to actually be" also anything worth being notable was previously documents parts of the corpus of the human knowledge.
Delete despite all the rabid fanboyism above. Absolutely no secondary sources for this dumb meme. Kill and salt. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stay With everyone jumping on the notable and fan boy wagon I guess I should help elaborate. I think it should stay because as everyone has already stated in theory it is notable but normally theory does not count on Wikipedia. I think it should stay because its clear than future exempts will be made to establish it. I also agree that black listing is not an option due to it being very well known meme and has non notability notability if you know what I mean. It is in the same lengths as gullible jokes , everyone knows them but there is no real notable evidence on them. --NerdXD (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC) — NerdXD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I get the feeling this AFD is heavily canvassed. Closing admin, pay attention to all the slobbering, blind fanboys. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you implying just because we support the Raptor Jesus article that we are now "Fanboys"? I'm not sure that I understand your way of thinking, and I am not sure why you are so against a simple internet meme. There is a wikipedia article on almost everything that I search, so there is no logical reason as to why Raptor Jesus should not have an article. I also have come to notice that I am now being singled out, simply because I appear to be new to Wikipedia, when you have no evidence of how much I know about Wikipedia, or even if I possess another wikipedia account, and am simply using a new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSI Geneticblizzard (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I presume you also know about WP:SOCK? G.A.S ^talk 20:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Please read WP:N and tell me how you think this meme is notable. Have any reliable, third party sources covered it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not answered my questions yet.
  - You're so defensive about the article. We have to have a cutoff as to what should have an article and what shouldn't, and just saying "but X has an article, why not Y" doesn't hold water. I'm not singling you out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To say that I am being so defensive about this is a false statement, I am simply showing a little support for an article that I think should be a wikipedia page. I have seen less notable articles, trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSI Geneticblizzard (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Please gentlemen take this to the talk pages , we are here to discuss why this page should be kept on Wikipedia ( which is should ) and could an admin lock the Raptor Jesus page due to high amounts of graffiti from non supporting users during our article for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansoffans (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to mention for the record I did add to article an semi-notable source which is a report about raptor Jesus on a internet article for a magazine. This should boost the brownie points for raptor Jesus being notable since it is mentioned in a credible source such as a wide spread magazine --Fansoffans (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the reposing but another little side note. Does it not prove that raptor Jesus is notable since these people are all turning up to debate about how notable the article is ?--Fansoffans (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not even close. Just one source isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed but it is certainly better then one and does prove that it has some credibility to be an article. It should also hold of deletion till I serch through thousands of Google hits trying to find a small scrap of evidence that is notable on raptor Jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansoffans (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Internet meme. It is lacking a picture of an Internet meme.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is what you ment but on teh article there is a picture and it does depict it as a meme --Fansoffans (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant exactly what I said. There is no picture of an Internet meme on the page Internet meme. So merge Raptor Jesus with that article. Specifically into this section--Alchemist Jack (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see , sorry I had a bit of a dumb moment ha ha. Yet alas I must disagree with you since even on the internet meme page raptor Jesus is no mentioned and most of the memes have there own articles so there is no need for a picture. --Fansoffans (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further note to add to the record: Some kind person has added a source to the raptor Jesus article that one could define as notable. It was added under references and is a meme encyclopedia which has a large section of pictures and explains what the raptor Jesus meme is. Current Source Count ( CSC ) : 2 --Fansoffans (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another wiki is not a reliable source. Anyone can edit a wiki. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If another wiki is not a notable source then this wiki is classes as one , is that not true ?--Fansoffans (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can't use Wikipedia to source another Wikipedia article, but if another site uses us as a reference that's fine. Those other sites have different rules. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise solution: Redirect to Internet meme and protect. I think the single source discussing this topic is enough to substantiate a redirect. As an added bonus it would stave off the would be 4channers from trying to recreate this under some new title next time. Hopefully a win-win. 76.102.99.251 (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HOW DO I DELETED ARTICLE? –xeno^talk 19:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has Raptor Jesus Answered Your Prayers of "Keep"?: This here AfD is famous now (sorta, complete with picture goodness): Wikipedia: 20 articles earmarked for deletion, Telegraph (UK) -- Of course all the comments so far are also about Raptor Jesus. --Milowent (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hilarious - of all the ways I might possibly be quoted in the Telegraph, this is the least likely way I could possibly imagine. I had to check the page header five times to confirm I was reading a newspaper and not a 14 year old's blog. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the telegraph must be reconciled as a notable source and I am sure this would count towards raptor Jesus notability will it not ? Added. CSC : 3 --Fansoffans (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, for the quite simple and obvious reason that it isn't about this subject. It's an article about Wikipedia, that provides no fact-checked reliable content about this subject at all. Heck, the journalist didn't even fact check what xe wrote about Wikipedia. (We have no "moderators", here.) Uncle G (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerning sources: In order to prove the subject's notability, a source would have to provide significant coverage, in reliable, independent, secondary sources. In other words, the sources should describe non-trivial artistic impact, cultural impact, and/or general popularity. Specifically, these sources should be able to answer the following: Criticism?/Reception by the public at large (not just the on-line community)? Who came up with the idea? G.A.S ^talk 04:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not want. Doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources, even with the last-minute intervention of the Daily Telegraph. But perhaps we should interpret this as divine intervention: dare we risk the wrath of a dromaeosaurid deity? We can merge this to List of internet memes anyway. Fences&Windows 20:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously non-notable, no significant coverage. There are places for junk like this and they cover it fully. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crush by diplodocus. the wub "?!" 14:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for brownie points may I say that the last article for discussion on raptor jesus had ALOT less input than this and hopefully this will stay open till Tuesday so this shows that it has grown ALOT in popularity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansoffans (talk • contribs) 21:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No where in the bible does it say Jesus was not a Velociraptor does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.121.12 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still no coverage in any reliable sources. (They're hard to come by for internet memes, but the really notable ones, like Rickrolling and Lolcats, have them.) Wouldn't object to it being recreated as a redirect to List of internet memes; but not every meme needs to be mentioned there, let alone have its own article. We're not Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Robofish (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Burninate. FWIW, I found this AfD through a Telegraph article. Subtle canvassing or slight notability bump? I report, you decide. Also note that the text bubbles in the illustration provided are not canon. They should read "Raptor Jesus, is this baby for sale?" - "It is now LOL!" 66.68.113.5 (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant comment removed. Tim Song (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stub - A simple image search turned this [49]. As you can see there are about 121,000 results currently. Apparently people actually have heard of this. I would like to see this moved to a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubanator87 (talk • contribs)
- Note: This user attempted to insert xe's !vote into that of 66.68.113.5 (talk · contribs) without signature, leading to the false impression that 66.68.113.5 made the comment. Tim Song (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robofish. Ottre 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete It is not even close. The sources cited by the article consist of cites devoted to promoting the meme with the exception of the Crave article, which barely mentions the subject. None of this nor any potential sources mentioned on this page (including another passing mention in the Telegraph article comes anywhere close to meeting WP:GNG. It is clear from reading the exhaustive discussion on this page that those who favor keeping the article either don't understand the notability guidelines or just don't care about them.Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 04:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Aryan Race[edit]

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

Article seems to be a complete synthesis of information and lacking in truly reliable sources. I was tempted to tag it CSD as a hoax, but uncertain if that would have been the correct tag. Thus I am sending it to AfD. Basket of Puppies 04:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One Gscholar hit, and one additional Gbooks hit, neither qualifying as RS. In the absence of someone unearthing some credible sources, this fails WP:Synthesis. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Awkward synthesis of unreliable 19th-century sources; there's nothing that this article could conceivably be about that isn't covered by the scope of the Aryan race and Aryan articles. 04:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - improperly cited sources are unverifiable; article appears to be in whole or part WP:SYN; content of article is non-notable per WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability in its own right; appears to be synthesis Chzz ► 09:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible sources for this term = WP:SYNTH. Priyanath ^talk 17:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Any redirect is a matter of editorial consensus. Sandstein 17:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Jin Moon[edit]

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

Sourced almost entirely to related (and generally WP:SELFPUB) Unification Church sources. Sole exception is NNDB, which WP:RSN has found to be unreliable. In any case none of these sources contain more than bare mentions (let alone "significant coverage"). ((find)) reveals nothing more than a handful of bare mentions. Recent opinion is that presidency of the Unification Church of the United States does not bestow any substantial notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Hendricks (2nd nomination) & Michael Jenkins (religious leader)#Merge proposal). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It sounds like this article about Ms. Moon may be attempting to ride on the coattails of Rev. Moon, but unfortunately, notability is not inherited. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - her main claim to notability appears to be her leadership of two organisations which themselves have dubious notability. The sources are poor. I can't conclude from what's in the article that she is herself a notable person, but I'd yield to someone with more knowledge of the subject matter. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTE. Yet another instance where Ed Poor (talk · contribs) seems not to be cognizant of WP:BLP, and has created an article on a living person sourced only to primary sources and unacceptable sources that fail WP:RS (NNDB, etc.). Cirt (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge. COI note: I am a member of In Jin Moon's church. Is it possible to keep a REDIRECT from In Jin Moon to True Children or True Family? I was unable to find the proper secondary sources yet. And is there really a hurry about this? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it was a redirect until you decided to recreate the article without secondary sources. It is your 'hurried' & ill-thought-out recreation that necessitated this AfD. It was pointed out to you three years ago that such actions are "unacceptable", if you didn't "pay any attention" to that, or any of the repeated advice since, then you can hardly be surprised when it results in another AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Tension Experiment Live 2008 - Limited Edition Boxset[edit]

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

No third party sources or demonstration of notability. Did this ever chart? Durova³¹⁸ 21:28, 15 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) 01:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to lack of reliable sources. I saw only trivial mentions on non-reliable sources.--Cannibaloki 03:48, 26 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 02:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 - delete per WP:N - no attempt made to establish notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two weeks to find sources showing any notability and it hasn't been done. Miami33139 (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to lack coverage to warrant an article; I cannot find any appropriate reliable sources to establish notability Chzz ► 09:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Business Culture Index[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, with little or no significant coverage. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A regular survey of any standing would surely get regular attention in the papers every year the results are release. I found one hit in GNews. Incidentally, it appears that User:Buddenr is creating pages for lots of different surveys managed by Target Group Index (two so far, the other one being Football fans index). There's no reason why these couldn't be mentioned on TGI's page (assuming TGI itself passes notability), but publicising every survey they do is a tad spammy for my liking. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:52, 15 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) 00:55, 22 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 02:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article was originally just coatracking for Target Group Index; I've deleted the offending content, which leaves an article that does not pass WP:N, as it fails to establish the notability of the subject matter (and also contains no independent sources). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If nobody defends this stuff in the first 7 or 14 days why bother relisting it again? Miami33139 (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 09:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keely Mills[edit]

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

A poet laureate for a city! But is he notable outside Peterborough? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. The best source I could find was this article from peterboroughtoday.co.uk. This local source is not enough to establish notability. I would vote keep if two local sources from two different newspapers were found, but I could not find more than one for the subject of this article. The other results are passing mentions that do not establish notability. Furthermore, a Google Books search returns no results. Cunard (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for a while - the article was only created a week ago, the creator is still active in improving the article as of three days ago, it's obviously still under construction, and the subject isn't so obviously and irremediably un-notable that I can say that notability couldn't be established with a little more work. Let's give the guy another week or so to see if he fills it out, and re-visit it then. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Give the guy another week or so" is exactly what an AfD does: when it is closed another week will have been given. By then we will have seen whether notability can be established. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has been tagged for notability for over a week, and all I can find on GNews is a few mentions in the same local paper. A promising career ahead, but not notable yet. Don't see any point in keeping the article any longer because I can't see any prospect of the article author or anyone else finding evidence of notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poet Laureate is a crown appointment, not (as far as i know) one that a borough can confer. Even if she were borough laureate, I doubt it would make her notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title "poet laureate for Peterborough" is just a rather pretentious way of saying that she won a local poetry competition in the town. I have made several Google searches for various combinations such as "Keely Mills" poet and "Keely Mills" poems, and so on, and checked several dozen resulting hits. The most substantial coverage I found was the brief article in "Peterborough Today" (mentioned above) which, alongside mentioning Andrew Motion's leaving the (National) post of poet laureate, also tells us that Keely Mills won the local competition. Most of the hits I found were brief mentions in listings pages, pages on myspace, blogspot, etc, or passing mentions of Keely Mills in articles that did not deal extensively with her, this Wikipedia article, etc etc. I myself have won local poetry competitions, but I don't think that makes me notable, and simply giving the winner of the competition a rather grandiose title does not create notability where there would otherwise be none. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for sources, too, and didn't turn up anything other than what Cunard and JamesBWatson have already mentioned. Uncle G (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of other articles on Peterborough Today. [50] and [51] seem non-trivial. I'm trying to advise Luke Payn on finding more sources, but I'm by no means an expert. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Keely Mills has appeared at a couple of art exhibitions etc, and the local paper has reported the fact. Is this enough to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria? WP:AUTHOR gives a list of criteria, including "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", and "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". I don't see Keely Mills as satisfying any of the criteria. A few reports in one local newspaper of her taking place in a small local exhibition etc do not begin to approach "has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", and taking part in one temporary local exhibition falls well short of "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". JamesBWatson (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Rainbow International[edit]

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

A pirate radio station with scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable radio station. There were no results about this topic in a Google News Archive search and a Google Books search. Cunard (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've just done a heavy clean-up of the article, making it NPOV, proper English, and vaguely comprehensible. I've gone through the references and removed fan pages, non-independent sources, and a few links that just redirected to Google searches. As a result there are now no sources remaining other than the station's official sites. Accordingly, delete for failing to establish notability. (Feel free to check my edit and see whether I've done the article a disservice.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this internet radio station. Joe Chill (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. 10:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Masterpiece Living[edit]

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

Strike the stuff about the MacArthur Foundation Study on Aging and its report, "Successful Aging". They may well be notable enough for their own article but not here. What are we left with? A load of vague peacock terms but very little sound information as to what Masterpiece Living actually is. Their website (which is probably written by the author of this article) is equally vague. In short: spam for a non-notable organisation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G7 - obvious advertising that is wholly unencyclopaedic. Failing that, regular-style delete due to the article failing to establish the notability of its subject matter. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean G11. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11. So tagged. (Spam.) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Jake Wartenberg 01:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insight Meditation Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable organization Orange Mike | Talk 01:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable organisation. Crafty (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Damn you, Cunard, and the New York Times and that other liberal rag, the Boston Globe. Delete--not notable; WP is not the Yellow Pages. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty, naughty. Let's not bring politics into the deep meditating realms of the holy Buddha. I don't think The Buddha would be too pleased with partisan criticism on his holy page. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Cunard, but this is a fact, as established by a reliable source, here. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm equally sorry, but if this were a reliable source, then Bullshido.net would be uber-notable. Cunard (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as virtually all of the references are to primary sources and nothing in the new version of the article establishes notability moreso than when it was last created. --otherl left 02:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I hate to disagree with you, Drmies, :) this is notable. See this article from the Telegram & Gazette, this article from the Boston Globe, this article from San Francisco Gate. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good legwork, but I'm not convinced. I can't access the Telegram & Gazette article without a paid membership, but assuming good faith that it's accurate, it's only a local paper so it doesn't carry much weight in its own right. The Boston Globe article is a good source, but the SF Gate article is about Spirit Rock and mentions Insight only incidentally as it relates to Spirit Rock - it doesn't even list separate contact information for the Insight Center. I think you have one good source, which suggests that others may be out there, but on its own it's not sufficient.--otherl left 02:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are more sources on Google News Archive; see here. This source also appears to provide some coverage. Cunard (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also the sources posted below. Cunard (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established by information included in article. I imagine the Dalai Lama and Richard Gere have been to a great many places during their lifetime, the vast majority of which don't merit a Wikipedia article.Keep - I've reviewed changes to the article and now believe it asserts notability (re: size, if nothing else) and has sufficient verifiable independent sources to back up that assertion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insight Meditation Society is notable. See this article from The New York Times, the article from The Boston Globe mentioned above, as well as this Google Books entry, this one, and this one. Again, notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you're provding are a mixed bag, and I wish you'd only point out really good ones, but I'm not entirely unconvinced. The Google News search looks like it's only minor coverage (local media sources) and the third book you provide as a source only lists Insight in its address listing, so I don't find those credible. I am of two minds on the NY Times source; I can't decide if this article about meditation establishes notability by interviewing people at the center or not (there's an accomplished reporter in my area who has written several articles for the Times, and I could foresee her writing one on meditation that used an otherwise non-notable establishment as its backdrop, but I am not sure if the mention would make such a place notable). I guess I would consider it a weak reference like the ones from local papers, since the article could have been written just about anywhere and still had the same information about meditation; my mind is open to be changed by the well-formed arguments of other editors, of course. Have you added any of these to the article? It would probably be easier for other editors to review them in context than have to wade through links like I did. Thanks again for your work on this!--otherl left 03:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of sources is great - and commendations on the work you put in to find them! - but as of this posting they're not in the article and the article still does not within its text make any assertion as to why it might be notable other than two celebrities having visited it. Please improve the article to pass WP:N on its own merits; we're evaluating what actually exists, not what might potentially exist. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not so, I'm afraid. If the topic is notable, and that is what we are here to weigh in on, the article gets to stay. AfD is not for cleanup, though it often is. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Dusty here. Fuck Cunard and fuck his poxy sources. We came to this AfD for a deleting, and we're gonna have a deleting, dangnabbit. Crafty (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay ... Cunard (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(to DustFormsWords) Sourced added. The NYT source provides significant coverage, as does this reference. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT item, in particular, is not substantial coverage of the IMS (the topic under discussion). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT source provides multiple paragraphs about Insight Meditation Society; see this Google cached link, particularly the coverage following the paragraph that states: "THE THREE-MONTH COURSE AT the Insight Meditation Society in Barre, Mass., is the marathon of meditation; no "little escape," it demands a total commitment." In conjunction with the Google Books results and The Boston Globe article, Insight Meditation Society is notable. Cunard (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Cunard, I'm still in favour of a delete. The sources now included in the article are in the nature of restraurant reviews, but for meditation retreats rather than restaurants. We wouldn't list every restaurant in every town in all the world simply because they'd had two or three reviews and I don't think it's appropriate here either. (To put it in the language of WP:N, the sources aren't "significant".) Also, there's no claim made in the article or in the supporting sources for why Insight Meditation Society is more notable than any other meditation retreat anywhere else in the world, and as such I don't feel that it passes WP:N unless someone puts forward a rationale for meditation retreats being inherently notable. (Thank you very much for responding to me and contibuting to the debate though!) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Cunard's sources show the subject as meeting the GNG fairly easily. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Cunard, notability is established. --Milowent (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is one of the most influential buddhist meditation centers in the world. the founders are all highly notable meditation instructors, and this is their core center for teaching. If the problem is one of getting adequate sourcing, i have no doubt it can be found. however, the coverage may be within the buddhist or meditation/new age community. New York Times, WSJ, Time, Newsweek, etc may be a bit short. so within the buddhist community, this is highly notable. and i agree that the purpose of AFD is to determine notability for the subject, not the article as it stands.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why are Buddhists so lazy at referencing their wiki pages? To me, this is an obvious keep. The IMS is exceptionally influential in both modern Buddhism and psychotherapy. There's a clear reason to get the page to a better standard, but not to delete it. Bluehotel (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because first there is a reference, then there is no reference, then there is. pablo_hablo. 15:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The IMS is arguably the foremost center for teaching and promoting vipassana and metta metitation in the U.S. and its founders Jack Kornfield, Sharon Salzberg, and Joseph Goldstein, aside from being highly respected teachers in the Buddhist community, are also among the most recognized authors on these types of meditation in the country. Notability is definitely established among Buddhists. 152.130.7.130 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response - Ah, but notability is not inherited! Not every brainchild of a notable individual is itself notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree, but its founders aside, Barre MA (home of IMS) is analogous to Mecca for American Buddhists who practice vipassana meditation. If they're serious about their study, they've either been there or want to go. The center/society is notable for being the foremost of its kind. Almost the only of its kind. 152.130.7.130 (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it should be pretty easy to find some sources to demonstrate that notability, then. --otherl left 02:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Although I do not practice within the Theravada tradition, I am friends with perhaps around 200 Buddhists and have personally had conversations with most of them about the IMS during our retreats (when they compare our experiences with those they had while at the IMS, for example). So IMS is quite notable in that it is well-known in the Buddhist community and held in high regard. The problem with documenting notability for a center such as this is that many of the sources that contain references to the IMS are in relatively small circulation papers and magazines directed toward the Buddhist community such as Snow Lion (Buddhist newspaper of Snow Lion publications from Ithaca NY) or Tricycle Magazine.

Perhaps there may be alternate ways of establishing notability for this center. I have beside me a stack of 16 books I've pulled from my library that reference the IMS. The Experience of Insight, by Joseph Goldstein, Shambhala Publications, 1976 discusses encounters during a 30 day retreat at the IMS and states "For further information about vipassana meditation you may contact The Insight Meditation Society (and gives the address in Barre, MA). A Path with Heart by Jack Kornfield, Bantam Books, 1993 contains references to the IMS and discusses their "Insight Meditation Teachers Code of Ethics." Breath by Breath, by Larry Rosenberg, Shambhala Publications, 1998 also references the IMS. I could make a long list but I think this illustrates the point.
Another way of recognizing the IMS as notable would be to look at their list of prestigous faculty and instructors for the year 2009-2010 found here [52]. Many of these teachers are among the best in this field. I have gone down this list and established that more than half of their core instructors are notable enough to have have en-wiki entries of their own (try it), including many that I've personally never heard of like Rodney Smith and others. And then some of their visiting instructors such as Sayadaw U Pandita are spiritual leaders of world-renown. Incidentally, I think all of the wiki articles I looked at on those individuals reference the IMS, so deleting this article would turn a lot of blue wiki-links red.
There is an chapter by Gil Fronsdal who studied Buddhist Studies at Stanford University that was published in The Faces of Buddhism in America in 1998 and is preserved here [53] which gives an overview of the introduction of some streams of Buddhism into the U.S. In this chapter he notes:

Arguably the most significant event for the introduction of vipassana to America occurred when Jack Kornfield and Joseph Goldstein taught summer meditation courses at the Naropa Institute in 1974, at the invitation of the Tibetan teacher Chogyam Trungpa and the Hindu teacher Ram Dass (Richard Alpert). Kornfield and Goldstein's classes proved immensely successful and launched a sixteen-year teaching partnership. For the next two years they traveled around America offering meditation retreats attended predominantly by Americans in their twenties and thirties.

In 1976, Kornfield and Goldstein, together with fellow teachers Sharon Salzberg and Jacqueline Schwartz, bought a former Catholic seminary and boys' school in Barre, Massachusetts. This became a permanent, year-round meditation retreat center called Insight Meditation Society (IMS). IMS quickly became the most active vipassana center in the West, with students coming from all over the United States and Europe to participate in ten-day to three-month retreats throughout the year.

This last statement of his from what I can discern is still the reality today. Surely this is enough to establish notability. I don't have any personal interest in this wiki article myself, but I was shocked to see that it was marked for deletion (and that it had been deleted once previously) given that the IMS is so well-known and highly regarded.HeartSpoon (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 01:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyPaint[edit]

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

We shouldn't have a consensus for deeming most FOSS as notable. No assertion of notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources which would support this program's inclusion. I also agree that being FOSS shouldn't be taken as automagically conferring notability. Crafty (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established. (Verges on Speedy Delete A7: no attempt to establish notability.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no attempt to reference it and claim notable. Miami33139 (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is not established here. Thank god we don't have a bunch of "WP:IAR" hand wavers this time around and can delete this cleanly. JBsupreme (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 01:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Financial democracy[edit]

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

Pure Original Research Synthesis essay. Constested prod. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does sound like the author is trying to push a viewpoint. While I'm interested in having this discussion, it's not going to be on Wikipedia. However, if the author wants to start a blog and post it there... Pat Payne (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting essay, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this essay. BTW, a good lesson for essay writing is "never cite a dictionary"--unless it's the OED, of course. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. (article consists entirely of original research) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with apologies to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. --Milowent (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. Joe Chill (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki to Wikisource. So Why 12:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to the Falashas[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a reprint publisher. The only content of this article seems to be the letter itself: this doesn't make an article. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--this is a primary text, with nothing secondary or tertiary about it (and I can't find any references that would make this a viable topic). Drmies (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 - no attempt made to establish notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource per the candidacy template on the page. I'm not sure it's valid, but it's certainly an option. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource per my nomination. A7 doesn't apply as we're not talking about organizations or people or web sites. MLauba (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to move it to Wikisource will they please do it... the tag to do so has been languishing on the page since May. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Transwiki to Wikisource: older versions of the article mentioned some aspects of the notability of the letter, and I believe this information was deleted. The article appears to have been an attempt to convince the Ethiopian Jews that their way of life placed them within Karaite Judaism. If this is to be retained as an article, the text of the letter needs to be moved to Wikisource (which is a reprint publisher). The article needs information about the rest of the correspondence and the letter's influence on Ethiopian Jews, European Karaites and any other relevant groups. --AFriedman (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leanna Heart[edit]

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Evil saltine (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 22 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 00:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see how just appearing on "Da Ali G Show" is by itself notoriety, given the format of the show. Pat Payne (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable actress. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American legends park[edit]

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

This article is about a youth baseball camp that does not meet notability. The article appears to be created by somebody related to the camp based on the user name. The camp itself is not yet operating. The only coverage I could find about it were a couple of articles in the local paper. [54], and [55]. This isn't enough to establish this camp as notable. Whpq (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Non-notable (as of yet) and conflict of interest.2 says you, says two 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:08, 22 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 00:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. No attempt made to establish notability of subject matter. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope map (0-55)[edit]

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

Redirect or Delete. Duplicate of Table of nuclides. Attinio (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicative per nom. Redirection does not seem useful in this case, since none of the various formats in which the information is already presented here—see Table of nuclides#Available representations—covers exactly this group of elements (atomic numbers 1–55). Deor (talk) 15:02, 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 00:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an incomplete duplicate per nom. Materialscientist (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, incomplete, apparently duplicated elsewhere. the table is to my eye impossible to read, and no lead or text obviously doesnt help. i would say unsalvageable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This format is a usability nightmare. Most of the links are to generic articles ("isotopes of X"), and there's no way to identify the ones that aren't (Carbon-14, for instance). The text is unreadably small and can't be magnified by ordinary browser controls. The image is ridiculously large (1600x1400, larger than most users' screens) and consists mostly of white space. Need I continue? Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bria Myles[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Per previous prod: subject is a model without any distinction except for appearances in music videos. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking reliable sources that establish notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:08, 22 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 00:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks sources to establish notability. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's a good chance she'll be notable within 12-18 months, but she's not quite there yet, on the basis of what's contained in the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 05:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latens[edit]

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

Cannot see that this company is notable. Haakon (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 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 00:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as notability apparently is not and cannot be established. JBsupreme (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Bouganim[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Minor model; just a directory entry article, doesn't have the coverage that I could find. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:19, 22 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) 00:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor coverage in 6 hits in gnews [56]. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. To close as delete would not reflect consensus, to close as keep would misrepresent the debate as settled, and I see no agreement over possible merge or redirect targets. While those editors favouring deletion are in the minority, the claims to notability here are nebulous and not decisively convincing. Skomorokh, barbarian 06:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nurarihyon no Mago[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No assertion of notability. Google search under the Kanji title still is not turning up any reliable sources that significantly cover the subject. Author also appears to be non-notable. Previously deleted at AfD but the article was recreated by a new account which has not edited anything beyond this article. The situation with the article hasn't changed since the previous AfD. —Farix (t | c) 00:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 00:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A CSD G4 request on this article has been declined. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet again. Still not notable and author is unnotable. It was pretty much recreated with a bit more OR/unverifiable information, and no real significant change, IMHO, but was different enough to avoid CSD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appearance in Shonen Jump and sales figures establish notability. Would also be willing to see a merge to an appropriate article (possibly Weekly Shonen Jump?) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Weekly Shonen Jump or other article - the information is valid and worthwhile to an understanding of the publication it appears in, but it doesn't merit its own article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I don't think WP:NB is appropriate here; this is more akin to the situation of a character or episode from a TV show, and as such I can see how it might not meet the criteria for its own article but would merit this kind of coverage on the main page for the series. Perhaps reformat Weekly Shonen Jump to make room for this, or move it to a page of series featured in Weekly Shonen Jump. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manga falls under WP:BK, which is completely appropriate. There is nothing to merge to Weekly Shonen Jump and reformating the article to include it would be inappropriate and ruin much of the good clean up that was done there in the last few months. That is an article on the magazine which lists only the titles running in it with basic info, no more. Its appearance in Shonen Jump does not establish any notability at all. Can you actually provide reliably sourcable sales figures showing it may have notability from that? Can you point to significant coverage of this series beyond a standard weekly report of sales figures of this particular work? If not, then it is not notable. As the author is also unnotable, re-deleting again is the most appropriate choice, with salting to prevent recreation until such time as real notability can be established. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being serialized in a magazine is not a criteria for notability and has been repeatedly rejected as such in other AfDs. Notability is not inherited by the manga from the magazine. Nor is sells of bound volumes, also known as trade paperbacks, a criteria either, and has been rejected many times in the past as well. Also, do you realize just how many manga series have been serialized in Weekly Shonen Jump? Try several hundred to possibly over a thousand. The article about the magazine should be amount the magazine, not about every manga ever serialized in it. Also WP:BK does cover manga and manga is nothing like a character or a television series. —Farix (t | c) 01:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your points generally, but when I say WP:BK doesn't apply, I mean by that that Weekly Shonen Jump is a notable book (or more accurately, periodic publication) in its own right, and that Nurarihyon no Mago might appropriately be viewed in the context of a column or regular feature within that notable publication. As such, the material contained within this article is useful and relevant to an understanding of Weekly Shonen Jump, and the mere fact that there may be an exceptionally large amount of similar material that may also meet that criteria does not of itself argue against the inclusion of this particular material. I'll fully agree that it doesn't deserve an article in its own right - it should appear under Weekly Shonen Jump, and I've changed my initial vote accordingly - but delete is not the appropriate response. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ isn't in the debate and is unrelated to WP:BK. Its notability does not confer to any title with in, and the material of this story is irrelevant to the magazine beyond "it appeared" which is already noted. There is nothing to merge and a redirect is not appropriate in this case. Its appearance in WSJ is temporary, not permanent, unlike what would happen if the author were notable enough for an article and then this redirected there (as the author will never change).-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's not how the notability of manga is determined, nor how manga has been handled on Wikipedia. Manga chapters are not "columns" nor are they treated as such. Also, you don't see any descriptions of "columns" in the articles for Newsweek or Time. Manga is treated just like other books under WP:BK and have for a long time. Articles about manga magazines are about the magazines, and not the manga that is serialized in them. —Farix (t | c) 02:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: columns getting their own article - Dear Abby, Savage Love. Those of course withstand a test of independent notability, but it's wrong to say that a column is itself subject to WP:BK or intrinsically not capable of meeting a notability test. Chicago Sun-Times makes a point of mentioning its most famous column, that of Roger Ebert, who then of course has his own article. The Australian lists off all of its columnists, who then each have their own page on no greater notability than being a regular feature within that publication (eg Michael Stutchbury, Michael Costello). I still say that this material is valuable to an understanding of Weekly Shonen Jump, and deserves its place in Wikipedia, the only question being where. (But thank you all for your very well-reasoned and intelligent arguments for the other side; I totally understand where you're coming from, I just disagree.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, manga is not a column, so those are not relevant comparisions at all. Apples to oranges. Further, Dear Abby is an unassessed article that has a merge discussion about it, and neither it nor Savage Love have been challenged for notability. Even further, both of those news paper articles are Start class, none of which are good examples of articles. However, we do have TWO GA level manga magazine articles to look at, which Weekly Shonen Jump's article is modeled on: Shojo Beat and Shonen Jump. The former has been peer reviewed and failed its recent FAC purely for lack of commentary because it was competing with an insane 60 candidates at the time. None of their peer reviews, GA reviews, etc, have said "should have more detail about the series", but some did question even having the series tables at all. Those are appropirate comparitions, and in neither of those cases do any of those magazines have any redirects from a single title to it, because the manga is independent from the magazine. Not all manga is serialized before hand, and in all FA/GA manga articles, the magazine it runs in is a single sentence mention unless it switches magazines (which has happened fairly frequently). Again, the materials is irrelevant to WSJ which already has enough details about the type of magazine it is, and its contents. f you intend to continue to try to compare normal magazines to anthologies, please at least bring forth similar FA and GA level works to compare to, not low class articles that have not, in fact, had any sort of peer review nor assessment by neutral parties. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shojo Beat has an individual page for every single series that was featured during its run. So does Shonen Jump. So it's no surprise no one felt those pages needed more detail on the series. If that's the precedent you're citing, I think it argues strongly in favour of keeping Nurarihyon no Mago for the very reasons I've outlined above. Once again, thank you for the passion, civility, intelligence and experience you're bringing to this debate but I just don't feel that precedent supports you or that your appeal to WP:BK is appropriate for a serialised sub-column of a notable publication (as opposed to free-standing independent publication). An adapatation of WP:EPISODE would be more relevant, which would indicate that if this page can't pass WP:N on its own merits, a short summary on Weekly Shonen Jump would be appropriate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still are not getting it. All of those series have individual pages because they are all notable per WP:BK, having multiple reviews and significant coverage in their own right, and their having articles doesn't have anything at all to do with their appearances in those magazines (they were, in fact, published FIRST, then serialized in those). They simply already existed. And sorry, but precedence FULLY supports that manga falls under WP:BK as per the actual consensus of the anime/manga project, discussion at WP:BK itself, and every other manga AfD that has happened in the last, oh 3-4 years, at least (that I have been on Wikipedia anyway). You seem to be completely unfamiliar with manga if you truly feel it is a "serialized sub-column" rather than an actual, free-standing work that just happens to be serialized in a magazine at some point. Many manga series are published straight to book form without serialization. No, WP:Episode is not at all an appropriate adaptation for manga. Again, WP:BK is the guideline used for manga per proper consensus here, by the project, and at BK itself, along of course with [{WP:N]] itself. Your continued argument that anything else is more applicable, again, speaks to a seeming overall lack of knowledge about manga as a whole. And no, a short summary in WSJ is not appropriate and would immediately be removed as per any proper magazine article. While your seeming passion for an article you have no personal stake in and for a topic you've never worked in (that I can recall) is interesting, in truth, your have not shown a single bit of notability for this manga series, you have not given any valid reason for a merge to WSJ despite having already been told it would not be appropriate, and in short, it seems unlikely this argument will do anything else but continue to go around in circles as two people who are very knowledgeable about manga have attempted to correct your initial errors but you seem unwilling to accept those basic truths, and, of course, you will never convince us to believe your view as it is wholly incorrect as I've already stated. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate things here: (a) the free standing publication of the work, to which WP:BK applies, and which thereby fails the notability test, and (b) its serialisation in Weekly Shonen Jump. I'm saying that instance (b) is notable within the context of the notability of Weekly Shonen Jump, and if its appearance there is not sufficiently notable for a page all of its own, the relevant material should nevertheless appear on WSJ's own page in an abridged format to enable a better understanding of that publication and its content. I don't think it's unreasonable that where a publication has a regular ongoing feature spanning a significant number of contiguous issues which uses a substantial portion of its page count, that those researching that publication might expect to find a synopsis, history, and creative credits for that feature appearing on the publication's main page. Therefore, the appropriate outcome is Merge. Once again, to be clear, I'm not arguing about the publication of the manga in its own right - that is clearly not notable under WP:BK. I'm talking about its appearance in WSJ. And again, thank you for your passion and experience. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, that the it has not spanned a significant number of issues nor does it use a substantial portion of its page count. WSJ currently has 22-23 manga series running, most only having 20-30 pages in an issue (not significant portion). WSJ has spanned over 2000 issues. It has appeared in less than 70 of those. Again, not significant. Many series have run far longer. I take it you have never seen nor read WSJ at all? It is not even a feature series, just one of many running. Again, a synopsis is NOT appropriate, and the title, start date, and author is already in the article. Again, nothing else belongs in WSJ and again, a redirect (not a merge) is not appropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan or subscriber to WSJ but I'm familiar with the publication's format (and more familiar still with similar publications such as Shonen Jump). To some extent a lack of immersion in the subject matter is an advantage here in that it brings a sense of perspective; for example I think under any reasonable view, 20 x 70 pages is a fairly significant contribution to WSJ's total output (or indeed the outcome of any periodical) and deserving of some analysis on the WSJ page. The fact that many other serialised stories may also be deserving of that attention is not of itself an argument for delete rather than merge (see WP:NOTPAPER). But look, I've put my argument as best as I can, and you've put your argument quite forcefully and convincingly. I suspect given other commenters here, and the past debates on this very article, that you're going to prevail, but if so I'd hope you won't be successful for lack of a well put contrary viewpoint. Thank you again for your excellent contribution to this debate. - 05:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DustFormsWords (talk • contribs)

Comment As I said last time, I just don't think it's worth the fight. It's managed a modest level of success in a tough magazine; in another year it may land an anime deal and become demonstrably notable, or it might fade out and be forgotten and can be deleted without people recreating it all the time. Doceirias (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't let some argue nonstop and get you to give up on what you believe is right. It has been featured in a popular magazine, which has a very high number of readers, a reasonable number of which must read it in order for it to remain. It has more people reading it than many bestselling novels. Wikipedia is not a collection of rules, things formed by common sense and consensus of whoever is around at the time to post their opinions. Dream Focus 19:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What on Earth are you talking about? The fundamental basis of Wikipedia is people working together to form consensus and the rules that such collaboration produces. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus means the opinion of whoever is around at the time, to argue until the other side gives up. The overwhelming majority of people see a long ongoing debate, and don't bother to participate at all. So its just a very small number of people that decide things. No voting has ever been done on any of the guidelines. Wikipedia isn't running out of space, and if you don't like it, you aren't going to find it anyway, unless you just like searching for things you dislike and wish to destroy. No general vote has ever been done on guidelines, so I just ignore them as the policy ignore all rules says to do, and use common sense. Remember WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. If you think the Wikipedia is better off with articles like this, that clearly have large numbers of readers, then keep it. If you believe something is actually gained by mass destruction of something some would find interesting to read, and those who didn't would never be able to find and notice anyway, then you have the right to state your opinion also. Dream Focus 23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand the origins of Wikipedia. Every single policy and guideline arose from the consensus of the community. Absolutely nothing was pre-existing. No deity gave us the five pillars. Even if a vote per se wasn't taken (although a lot were), the guidelines are the result of the collective mind deciding what's best for the project. Your initial statement was so amazingly wrong that I had to point it out, and your cynicism in the follow up indicates that this might not be the place for you. The way Wikipedia evolved is the result of people - everyone, from the bureaucrats to the anon IPs - editing over the span of years, and you're really claiming that the whole thing, all 3+ million articles with tens of thousands of contributors, boils down to a pissing contest? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the most delusional things I've ever read, honestly. No one short of the people who are entirely devoted to this site have any say in the rules here at all. Wikipedia was formed by a handful of the userbase deciding on one thing, and then using that small circlejerk to decide on a few more things, followed by even more things under those decisions in a cascading motion that no one can argue against. Wikipedia isn't the utopia you've fooled yourself into thinking it is, it's really just a small, thick ball of recluses spending all their waking hours micromanaging and molding the work of millions of people to their personal views of what they think this place should be. At least, that's how the entire entertainment and fiction division of the site works. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Collectonian. She is an expert on these matters. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Collectonian's certainly a smart and eloquent editor with a long history of constructive improvement of manga articles on Wikipedia. But her arguments should stand or fall on their own merits; saying "She's been right before so she's probably right now" is no more helpful than saying "She was wrong those couple of times so she might be wrong now". See WP:ADHOM - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You saying that is no more helpful than saying "I am going to heckle you because you agree with the person that I disagree with." Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not heckling you; your interest and contribution to the debate is appreciated and enriches Wikipedia. I'm just saying that an ad hominem argument doesn't go any way to understanding who's made the better case here. I've got a lot of respect for Collectonian and her very substantial contribution to the project and I'd never go so far as to attack someone for agreeing with her. I'd encourage you to expand out your Keep argument to say why you personally believe Collectonian (or anyone else) is correct. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point was that you wouldn't have made any response to my !vote if I had said "Keep per DustFromWords. He's knows whats up". By the way, I stated that deletion is the best option. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Probably not, but I would have expected Collectonian (or someone else of that viewpoint) to have pulled you up for it, and they would have been perfectly correct. I guess what I'm asking you is, why do you believe it should be deleted? Being a debate and not a vote, what we're looking for is more analysis of the issue, rather than just an unexplained declaration of support for one side or the other. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I find it amusing that you're trying to explain AFD practices to me using an authoritative tone (particularly a fan of the "what we're looking for") and linking to ATA, but I'll play along.
        
        It's obviously non-notable. I didn't turn up any sources. People who I know to be more familiar with the genre and available offline/foreign/obscure sources are saying that there is no significant coverage. The author is seemingly non-notable as well, which strongly indicates that his individual works are almost certainly non-notable. On top of that, it was deleted once already, recreated by a spa, and back at AFD within a month. I can't see the previous version to know if the G4 decline was valid, but I tend to believe Farix and Collectonian (both of which I have seen being level headed in AFDs numerous times before) wouldn't lie that the deleted version is comparable to the new one. Note, I am not endorsing their views just because it's them, but I am instead using them as additional source of facts. Namely, that references do not exist in places that I don't have easy access to and that this version is substantially similar to the deleted version. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed, it's non-notable. Which is why it should be merged with WSJ or the list of WSJ series; both of those articles DO meet the notability criteria, and the information here assists in an understanding of those topics. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll echo Quasirandom's thoughts on merging right below. His analogy is apt. Please don't make the same reply to me as you did to him. I've read this entire discussion. You're simply not making any convincing arguments for the retention of this material in any form. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the previous AFDs, I cannot convince myself to say delete or keep, because while there's extensive indications the subject notable, I have nothing that concretely meets the cold, hard rules of WP:BK. However, I must register strong opposition to merging to Weekly Shonen Jump. Listing and discussing every series that magazine has ever run is as inappropriate as, say, listing and discussing every short story and essay to be published in The New Yorker in that magazine's article. Which is a close analogy, btw, if you allow for the difference between serialized and one-time publication. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure why we would allow for the difference between serialised and one time publication. Either the information is useful and relevant to an understanding of WSJ, or it's not. If it's useful, it should be in Wikipedia and if it's not it shouldn't. Once we establish it should be in Wikipedia, the next question is whether it has a page of its own, appears on the WSJ page, or appears via some compromise. If you feel including this on WSJ would make the article too bulky or cause a disproportionate amount of detail in one section, have you considered creating a page for List of series appearing in Weekly Shonen Jump and putting the data there? - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being "useful" is not a criteria for being on Wikipedia. And there is already a list, which is at List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump (and needs renaming), which contains the full historical list. This list is clearly linked from the WSJ article above its list of current series... and no, it would not be an appropriate place to have a summary of the work or anything else beyond title, author, dates, etc. as it has now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Being useful" isn't the words I used. I said "useful and relevant to an understanding of WSJ". If X is a topic that passes the notability test, and Y is appropriately sourced information that meaningfully enhances an understanding of X, then Y belongs in the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not paper and if information otherwises passes the tests for inclusion, the mere fact that there's rather a lot of it does not defeat its inclusion. Your argument for not merging this with the list seems to be that it would result in the list article being a very long article; that's (to my mind) not a particularly strong argument and if it's recognised in any of Wikipedia's policies I'd genuinely appreciate having it drawn to my attention. (WP:EVERYTHING isn't the relevant one - we're talking about material that otherwise passes tests for inclusion.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The point is that it is not relevant to an understanding of WSJ. Jump is a manga anthology which has been in circulation since 1968, and in its 41-year history, countless series just like Nurarihyon have passed through its pages. Saying, then, that there should be some sort of plot summary and other info for Nurarihyon beyond what's already on the series list means we must also do the same for all other series without articles (and, probably, all series with articles) which Jump has ever carried - an unthinkable situation. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has pretty good sales, as mentioned several times in previous comments by others, and it did receive the 2007 Gold Future Cup award [57]. —Tokek (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there an actual source to that claim? Foreign language Wikipedias are not reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 22:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has a source. I just used Google translate and found it. I'm adding that to the article. Proves that it is in fact a favorite of those who read the magazine, and thus quite notable. Dream Focus 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The source is Weekly Shonen Jump the very publisher of this manga. Not very credible. --KrebMarkt 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Their readers do a survey, and they publish the results. Being number one in Jump is fairly impressive for any manga. Do you doubt the claims that this manga won that award? Dream Focus 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I doubt the notability of this award. Something awarded by Jump to a mangaka of Jump based on the vote of Jump readers. Marketing & communication at full throttle. --KrebMarkt 20:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 4th and 5th volumes of it, published on its own, sold over a 100,000 copies each! Being a bestselling book, does make you notable, by the laws of common sense. Will the closing administrator please note that fact. Dream Focus 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 100,000 copies is not a particularly spectacular seller for manga -- respectable success, but not a huge one. The real bestsellers sell over a million copies per volume in Japan. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't "laws of common sense" an oxymoron? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no common sense. ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weekly Shōnen Jump While not a bestseller, 100,000+ copies for two diffrent volumes is still pretty good. Are there resources that prove the manga won an award and were Hiragana and Katakana looked up as well for sources? Another option Id go with is just redirecting to Weekly Shōnen Jump. —Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2009 (AT)
- Based on the description of the "award", I am extremely hesitant to say it would actually confer notability of any type to the series (popularity polls run by the publisher can't be used to establish notability of individual characters to my knowledge, so why should it be any different if the subject of the poll is series instead of characters?). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jump "homebrew" award for their best rookie or so and more a popularity contest. --KrebMarkt 20:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its readers voted it the most popular series in Jump for that year. The notability guidelines were passed(by small numbers of people, not a general vote) to prevent the Wikipedia from filling up with "cruft", as they called it. It wasn't created to keep things, which are read by over a hundred thousand people, from getting at least a basic entry. The encyclopedia isn't complete if leaves things like this out. Dream Focus 21:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the right venue to discuss your perceived faults in Wikipedia policy adoption. Please try to stay focused. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - DreamFocus is only restating WP:NOTHING, which is a perfectly valid point. And Wikipedia policy is built through active polite good-faith discussions exactly like this one. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope, policy is not decided on individual AFDs. Broad statements about the origins of notability contribute nothing to the discussion at hand, especially when those statements simultaneously ignore the fact that those policies are what dictate inclusion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Playing devil's advocate against my own "merge" position, Dream Focus above has identified the relevant policy WP:N, made an argument presenting her belief as to the intent and spirit of that policy, made an implied reference to the fact that passing or failing WP:N only creates a presumption for or against notability and not a definitive judgement of it, and then used all that to found an argument for WP:IAR. It's shorthand, but it's valid. And it's probably better to address that argument on its merits rather than to dismiss it out of hand for perceived technical shortcomings in its presentation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a rule about the spirit of the rule, not the letter of the law. And a single AFD does affect the guidelines at times. I recall after everyone saying that having a successful opening in theaters in Japan made an anime notable, Collectonian rushed over and changed the guideline to include that. If enough people were convinced to agree that sales did equal notability, and the hardcore campers at those policies didn't argue with them until they gave up in frustration, or contact all of their friends to edit war revert changes constantly, the guidelines could be changed. Until there is a general vote involving a significant number of people that edit the Wikipedia, to determine what is and what is not notable, you can't expect any reasonable minded person to take those things seriously anyway. Dream Focus 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The series is very vast and is gaining popularity, there isn't any reason to delete it.--Twilight Mage (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to reliable sources that actually show it is notable, not just "vast" whatever that means, and that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The series started as a one-shot and received enough attention to gain a weekly serialization and has earned a Drama CD. I'm attempting to find a link to it winning the future gold cup award --Twilight Mage (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever the outcome here, it also needs to be applied to List of Nurarihyon no Mago characters, and take note of User:Twilight Mage's sandboxes for Nurarihyon no Mago and List of Nurarihyon no Mago characters. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty obviously notable and quite popular. I don't even comprehend what the problem is here. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can you claim keep is the best course when you, as you put it, "don't even comprehend the problem"? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's much more about me not comprehending the existence of a problem, because there really isn't one. This article shouldn't even have been glanced at in the first place. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any policy-based reasoning or can your !vote be summed up as simply "there's no problem because I say there's no problem"? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any logical reasoning or can your "!vote" be summed up as simply "I can't think in concepts other than black and white, so delete this"? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we be thinking in any terms other than black-and-white when it comes to notability? Even if we limit ourselves strictly to the notability guidelines, there is still some room for interpretation, and the above discussion (and previous AfD discussions) make it quite evident that this series comes just about as close as possible to falling squarely within that range of interpretation. The fact that you don't seem to like the policies and guidelines here doesn't negate the fact that they exist, have consensus, and must be followed, nor is it a valid argument for keeping an article. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking in black and white in regards to "lol policy" and "lol not policy" while not running a single line of thought across what "notability" even is or how you're benefiting the encyclopedia or its readers. Any moron in a real-life situation would acknowledge that an ongoing book series put out by a major publisher with a few hundred thousand readers which managed to be serialized and garner a fair amount of popularity in a major magazine and managed to get some sort of spin-off/adaption media produced is "notable".

What exactly are you attempting to do here? This is the part I really want to know. Are you removing this content to make this site better organized? Are you trying to remove possibly false information? Are you attempting to take down an advertisement? Just what kind of advantage or benefit, in your personal view, will the deletion and shunning of this content give Wikipedia? This isn't an internet forum or blog with a bunch of worthless users and posts you're micromanaging here, you're actively allowing and disallowing information from reaching the millions of people who use this site as a resource. Knowing what your own intentions are is important. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully review everything I have said in this discussion - not once have I actually voiced my opinion on whether this article should be kept or deleted. All of my comments have been observations either on this discussion (responses to other arguments) or comments related to the article (pointing out the existence of the character list and userspace sandboxes). I have purposely avoided giving an actual opinion on how to handle the article because I am not as familiar with the notability guidelines as the others who have provided their opinions, and I don't particularly feel like doing much research for myself on the matter (and if you wish to fault me for that, by all means do so), but in particular, nowhere have I suggested that I think the article should be deleted. Kept, deleted, merged, redirected, userfied, transwikied... it really doesn't matter to me, but if it were up to me, ignoring policy and guidelines, I would probably leave the article in place, or at the least userfy it for now. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.109.20 (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, terribly sorry. I thought I was still talking to the other guy when I posted that. My bad. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather disappointed to hear that, as it suggests you are arguing based on who you're talking with, rather than on the merits of their arguments. AFDs are not the proper venue to pursue a personal agenda with or against other editors. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was still arguing against the merits of his argument, it's just that I accidentally accused you of being in favor of a solid deletion when that wasn't the case. I have no personal agenda against the other guy. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus is delete, the weak improvement doesn't seem theseable Nja²⁴⁷ 07:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Integrational polytheism[edit]

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

This article describes a religious viewpoint that does not appear to be noteworthy. Outside of a handful of websites, mostly wiki-type reference websites, Integrational Polytheism seems to have little coverage or recognition on academic, media, or other websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaphile (talk • contribs) 2009/09/18 02:50:32

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep But Improve References need work, topic probably notable. Needs eyes, not deletion. Article does need considerable work.Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 22 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) 00:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, therefore notability not established. Would be willing to revisit vote if sources are added. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as neologism, no references, article cant even say who created the term. links are to blogs. redirect to pantheism or polytheism even seems premature, as i dont see any content here that can be added to those articles. basically a brief essay.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 01:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick D'Amico[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rick D'Amico

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

Non-notable. 0 refs and full of ((fact)) templates. Most hits at Google from social networking sites. Pmlineditor^Talk 17:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:49, 22 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 00:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He does exist and he is a Phoenix-area anchor, according to [[58]]. Now whether this is notable enough is beyond my paygrade, but I do know this, that if the article is kept, it's going to need a considerable overhaul, first for grammar (the thing is shoddily written) and for factual accuracy (according to his official bio, he has won one Emmy, not "several", for instance). Pat Payne (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - notability not established by sources. HOWEVER if someone is able to introduce sources that back up the article's claims (particularly the Emmy nominations), I'd happily change my vote to Keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 3 years without sources is enough to prove to me that he is not notable. Kevin (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfied and deleted by User:Topbanana. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Banks[edit]

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

Bit of an odd one this. This article was previously considered for deletion as part of a mass nomination and was deleted. It was then restored "with permission from deleting admin" (quoted from edit log). This "permission" was obtained here. However I disagree with the deleting admins unileteral overturn as all of the independent sources appear to be small local sources and there is a question over whether these confer notabality - personally I don't think they do. At the very least I'd prefered this to have gone to deletion review to reguague consensus given in my opinion it's not a clear cut case that restoration is appropiate. Given that it's now back in article space I think another AfD is in order to gauge whether consensus is that this article should be kept. Dpmuk (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ WP:DRV calls for first a discussion to take place with the deleting admin, which was done and criteria was met. When the article was improved, the deleting admin reversed the decision. Most of the deleted articles in the previously-mentioned bulk AFD have been restored with explanations at the West Incident essay and workpage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:58, 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 00:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - his sole claim to fame seems to be as a college football coach; I'm not a sports guy but I wouldn't have thought "college football coach" was inherently notable, so therefore the article fails WP:N. I stand to be corrected by a sports enthusiast. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction subject also was a track and field coach for many years. Football was not the "only" claim to fame.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correction noted with thanks! But it doesn't change my opinion. I wouldn't have thought track and field coaches were inherently notable either, and I'm not aware of anything about the combination of the two fields that lets them combine to achive a notability greater than the sum of their parts. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:BIO..South Bay (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question why per WP:BIO? Please do not just say "delete per" and give no reasoning, the purpose of this is a "discussion" ... --Paul McDonald (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO because him coaching at Geneva College is unspectacular considering the school is now NCAA Division III which is one of the lower levels of college football. If he had coached at the Division I level I'd say he's notable any lower and it depends on sourcing.--Giants27(c|s) 01:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction he coached at Geneva in 1967 and 1968, Division III did not exist until 1973. The two divisions were "NCAA University Division" and "NCAA College Division" (see the NCAA artilce).--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I've corrected might !vote by adding "now" since even though they were on the same level I'd still consider it to be a lower level school.--Giants 27(c|s) 18:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in the article shows that he passes WP:BIO. Note that it is incumbent on those seeking that the article be kept to prove notability. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I'll bring this one back in to userspace. Procedure was followed, but apparently consensus does not yet support the inclusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Request completed userfication, not sure on procedure to close out the DRV. Can someone please close this out as "deleted/userfied" ??--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Tallitsch[edit]

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

No known musical notability Paul210 (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete. Does not quite satisfy WP:BAND with one album published by a notable label. Evil saltine (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 22 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) 00:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability not established. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND and Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Clearly a vanity article.Paul210 (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Jarrell[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Maybe in a few years. ^Bongo_matic 03:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:20, 22 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) 00:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - signed to a major record label and asked to perform for POTUS. Just squeaks in as notable, IMO. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BAND - non notable musician. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Performing at the White House Easter Egg Roll is hardly "performing for POTUS"—the source is not NPOV in the first place, and the summary in the article doesn't even reflect what's in the source. Being signed to a major label isn't what establishes WP:BAND—it's releasing two albums on one. ^Bongo_matic 01:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, with thanks. Vote changed above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Predator fish[edit]

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

Almost non-existent article. I foolishly PRODed instead of speedying and the PROD was removed without rationale or attempts to fix. "Predator fish" is not a scientific term and the group does not form an actual taxonomic unit, like "sharks" or "tuna". May qualify as neologism as well. Matt Deres (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Predator fish" isn't a neologism, it's a well-established phrase. These journalists were using it in the '50s:[59] It is scholarly as 2,670 groups of authors used it in a scholarly article:[60] A better title would be Predatory fish as that's used by 13,900 articles, but a slip of a letter in a title can be easily fixed. It's not a taxonomic grouping, but the article isn't claiming it is - it is a particular feeding behaviour. By this logic we'd delete Venomous fish and Electric fish, and we'd even delete Fish as that's not an actual taxonomic unit; fish are paraphyletic, what with the Tetrapods sitting in the middle. It's a stub, but that's no reason for deletion. Fences&Windows 21:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Title is now Predatory fish. Fences&Windows 21:58, 26 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) 00:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - the article contains no useful information. Also, this is no more article-worthy than "carnivorous burrowing mammal" or "omnivorous waterfowl". We have a page for "predator" and a page for "fish" - readers can presumably put two and two together to understand what "predatory fish" might mean. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything wrong in the title - it is common to tweak it to put emphasis on a certain topic or split up a large article, but. There is nothing valuable in the body. The author could always recreate it with useful content. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. add the one ref to article on food chain, or biodiversity, or predation, or overfishing, but this is not an article. term could be mentioned as well in one of these articles, or in an article on predators.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A1/A7). A combination of lack of context and a lack of importance. MuZemike 03:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Murro[edit]

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

Confusing article, ostensibly about a man and his daughter who got their picture taken with president Obama. Not notable as a singe event. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A1 (no context). So tagged. Nothing in there. He's apparently a banker that was photographed with President Barack Obama, that's all I could gather. Almost went with nonsense. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Already tagged for A7, I don't recognize speedy declines done by IPs with no edit summary (particularly if the IP appears to be the article creator, which is how it looks in this case). Hairhorn (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but fortunately taking it to AfD is easy now that I am armed with Twinkle, so no harm done, I guess. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In any case, I'm the mopper who recommended AFD, as there are hints of notability. It was worth giving the benefit of the doubt to the creator and IPs and discussing it rather than deleting it. tedder (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Has the article been blanked? There's nothing left there that could by any standard be called an article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Prevent Re-creation In traipsing around the previous history of ther article and its creator, I'm of the opinion that the original poster is Mr. Murro, who is trying to commemorate his meeting of Obama. This is the fourth Murro-related article or edit in the span of a few days. The edits are about the only edits the OP has made. Pat Payne (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I envy Mr. Murro, but speedy delete per nom. It seems like the creator is desperately trying to save the article by just throwing templates around without having any real understanding of how they work. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 04:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angelene Aguilar[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. passing mentions in gnews [61]. simply having an IMDB listing does not guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - her "claims to fame" aren't cited which makes it impossible to make an assessment of her notability; therefore her notability isn't established. Were her claims of fame to be cited, and turn out to be notable, I'd be willing to revisit my argument. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete problems with notability and sourcing Nja²⁴⁷ 07:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quod Libet[edit]

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

This software does not claim to be notable. Existing references are blogs, documentation, and source code sites. Wikipedia is not a software catalog, source code navigator, or how-to site. Miami33139 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quod Libet is a commonly used media player with quite a lot of advanced features that other media players do not have. The software doesn't need to claim to be notable to be notable. Agreed the article needs work, and the article sources aren't necessarily authoritative. The older official site is no more and the main homepage is a Google Code page, but that is still not an open wiki page as such and is the best source of general information about it. I don't believe that there is cause for deletion just because not everyone thinks it is a really notable piece of software. By having the article it enables users who are e.g. looking for an alternative media player on the Linux platform to read an (albeit short) informative description of it from a well-known and used source. Arite (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for responding Arite. Unfortunately, these are not the reasons articles are kept around on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a software directory. The sources that show notability need to be independent sites like academia, books on the subject, or large news items. You are welcome to read the Wikipedia:Notability policy to understand why mere existence is not a reason for Wikipedia to document it. Miami33139 (talk) 15:25, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established within article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Sports Generation[edit]

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

delete - New (Jan 2009) internet site has no reliable sources establishing notablilty. The "references" for "featured on" links appear to refer to the existence of what looks like probably paid promotion on other blogs, some affiliated with major newspapers, but blogs nonetheless. Need reliable third-party articles about this site to support notability. As is, this appears to be a promotional attempt to drive traffic to the site. Yworo (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Chicago Sun Times and Empty The Bench link to the site, but that's about it for that. Waiting For Next Year is a blog that mentions Miami, but the entry in question does not even mention MSG. The last reamining doesn't even mention Miami in it at all. This site needs to be more notable if it's going to survive. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established. Even IF it's been featured everywhere it says, journalists, columnists and commentators are not intrinsically notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:26, 29 September 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.