< 9 February	11 February >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was merge to East China School District. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Clair Middle School[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP, reason given was:

Middle school with no indication of notability. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tim Song (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 02:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to East China School District. Isn't that what we normally do with elementary and middle schools? Glenfarclas (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Glen. The link to the school website can be thrown into the district article. Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to East China School District.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to East China School District and lets move on. TerriersFan (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Haworth[edit]

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

I have searched for reliable sources to establish notability and have unable to locate anything significant other than a few websites selling the subject's work. I have been unable to find any coverage of any exhibits, etc. in reliable sources as well. It appears that this person is not yet notable enough for a Wikipedia entry based upon my searches. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fail WP:CREATIVE. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find this person's work for sale, but there is no coverage bout her in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficient secondary coverage to meet wiki requirements for an article per WP:N. Ty 19:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq Smappy (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhy dont you all just search for Christine Haworth on the internet? I cant understand your thinking. I need help with this article, not criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel Law (talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC) — Nigel Law (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply - We have searched on the internet for her. And we have not found any reliable sources providing significant coverage about her. If you know of such coverage, you should put it forward here in this discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was The result was delete Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover[edit]

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

Delete. Undoubtedly a sad matter, but the subject fails the test of notability. The 11-year-old was not notable prior to death, so this is WP:ONEVENT. The death has not led to any significant change to community or legal practice. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply here. WWGB (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's certainly a sad event, as are other child deaths. With an absence of significant and long running press coverage, taking into account WP:NOTMEMORIAL, it falls outside the criteria for inclusion. –Whitehorse1 22:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS Smappy (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awful, and I can certainly empathize. But it's clear that his death has not attracted ongoing news coverage. Too bad, but delete. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Migrationism[edit]

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

Unreferenced, original research. Mattg82 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionism per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is still in need of in-line sources but the topic should probably be covered here in some form. JBsupreme (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not original research. Google scholar has many references to the term, including this from 1978: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.an.07.100178.002411 WP:BEFORE is a Good Thing. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The general concept is explained with two good sources. No need to prove that the theory is true for it to be notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to a future merger This area of archaeological theory is a bit of a mess. We have Trans-cultural diffusion, Demic diffusion, Invasion theory and Acculturation [1] (at least), all related aspects of archaeological theory although they don't all link to each other (eg Trans-cultural diffusion despite having an external link to an article with the title "Diffusionism and Acculturation" doesn't have a link to Acculturation and vice versa). So, although I think this article should be kept, it should be kept without prejudice to a future merger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 08:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge per Dougweller, ~~and *trout* nom per his persistent habit at failing WP:BEFORE when nominating at AfD.~~ I confounded nom with !voter below, sorry. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, plainly a valid and notable topic within anthropological/archaeological theory, article created by a well-informed editor who alas no longer edits here. Per Doug there's work needed to rationalise and better organise the treatment overall of the various paradigms put forward as explanations or mechanisms for spatial & temporal change. But I think the ones we have (to those mentioned by Doug above, we might add couple others like sociocultural evolution) are sufficiently independent and differentiated concepts, & so not really candidates for merging. Rather, in addition to some cross-linking (a navbox maybe?) there are one or two umbrella articles where they could each be summarised and linked to; culture history is probably the most appropriate, though archaeological theory also should cover/mention most of these.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. This close is explicitly without prejudice to renomination if the RFC removes the relevant criterion from WP:PORNBIO. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Carrington[edit]

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

Delete, textbook WP:BLP1E example. Beyond appearing in a magazine once, there is zero notability. JBsupreme (talk)

Speedy Keep - if notability is the issue - clearly passes WP:PORNSTAR. Codf1977 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I understand it, WP:BLP1E doesn't mean we shouldn't provide information on people only known for one event, but rather that it's usually more appropriate to place that information within an article about the event. However, in this case, it would be unfeasible to merge all 600 Playmate articles into one article, such as the Playboy Playmate article. As long the model meets WP:GNG, I think a seperate article is appropriate. Epbr123 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies GNG for me with multiple intellectually independent and reliable sources. I don't believe playboy playmates fit the low-profile mandate of BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - totally agree with Epbr123 & Morbidthoughts. NorwalkJames (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PORNSTAR. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low profile before posing for Playboy, low profile after posing for Playboy. WP:BLP is policy, and I'm not sure how nude modeling alone makes one a "pornstar". Townlake (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "WP:PORNSTAR" is simply a redirect. Yes, the notability section is titled "pornographic actors" and yes, there likely is a better heading for the section but Playboy is labelled as pornography and therefore Playmates sort of naturally fall under such a category. I continue to be confused as to why this is such a hang up for some editors. Dismas|^(talk) 04:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see why you use the passive here; Playboy didn't label itself as "pornography." The PORN project labels every Playmate as under its purview, but tellingly, the project doesn't dare do this with celebrities who pose for Playboy, such as Farrah Fawcett, Lisa Rinna, Samantha Fox, Kristy Swanson - all of whom posed nude and all of whom appeared on Playboy's cover, none of whom get the XXX stamp on the talk page. WP:PORNSTAR is nonsensical and unevenly applied, and promotes an inherently controversial claim w/r/t Playmates; RFC or no RFC, I don't see why the closing admin should feel obligated to even temporarily honor PORNSTAR ahead of WP:BLP. Townlake (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Feel free to change the PORNBIO heading to "Pornographic actors and erotic models" or something. Epbr123 (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Wait - There is an RFC going on right now as to whether Playmates are notable simply for being Playmates. Instead of cherry picking this Playmate or that Playmate (since that seems to be the central issue, "is a Playmate notable for just being a Playmate"), this should be decided on a broader basis. Futhermore, there is a history of Playmate articles being kept on the basis of them being Playmates. And I'd like to remind the nominator that he voted to keep the last of these examples which has fewer sources than this article. Dismas|^(talk) 04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to remind me, after further consideration I feel that the WP:PORNBIO inclusion criteria for playmates of this sort are rather weak. JBsupreme (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 04:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least hold your horses until "consensus" has been rigged before starting the massacre-- and then pick the ones that haven't been the subject of multiple reliable sourcing. Very POINTy nomination. Dekkappai (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This was not meant to be "pointy", but I do invite people to join the relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable -- all viewpoints are welcome. JBsupreme (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Without the exemption for notability porn bio, she is clearly not notable at all. Off2riorob (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for passing WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamecaster[edit]

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

Small company page, original author has not yet written an additional article to provide context. TheProphet92 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -- sources provide plenty of significant coverage and are reliable. The fact that the author has not written a second article is irrelevant and not sufficient criteria for deletion. Recommend a speedy keep as the article covers both WP:RS and WP:N and the nomination does not provide sufficient reason for AfD. Additionally plenty of other reliable, significant refs can be found in a two minute Google search. --Teancum (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfectly fine sourcing from major publishers. I do not understand the nominator's delete rationale. Marasmusine (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage from reliable source already present in the article. Pcap ping 03:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kick madden[edit]

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

Non notable game that was probably made up by the author. PROD removed by author Malcolma (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-admitted case of madeupitis. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly not notable, as the other editors above say. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The idea was developed in Lancaster, England when games of Madden became a bit boring." Pretty well sums it up for me. The idea is that after you go as far as you can with the kickoff return, punt return, fumble recovery, you have to kick a field goal or punt the ball down field. Extra rules are included in case one finds that it's even more boring that way. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course it is made up, its a game! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjamayne (talk • contribs) 16:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC) — Cjamayne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Of course, and it's fair to say that nearly everything we enjoy is "made up", usually by mankind or a deity, and a small fraction of these things earn the dubious honor of being mentioned on Wikipedia. But some made-up things are more notable than others. I think that the WP:MADEUP says it best: "If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website or blog instead." Interesting idea, yes; well known to the rest of the world, no. Mandsford (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cjamayne, did you read WP:MADEUP yet? If not, please do. If yes, then ignoring it does not excuse the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Thomas Harrison[edit]

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

Possible autobiography/hoax Grim²³ ★ 22:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Are you kidding? Blatant vanity/hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to speedily delete it but WP:HOAX seems to rule that out.Grim²³ ★ 23:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((db-hoax)) applies. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lakota Electric Outage of 2010[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. So there was an outage. Big deal, they happen all the time. Article's main goal seems to be begging for donations ("The Episcopal Church has stepped in to help the reservations residents survive this winter but are in need of donations.") Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, a short-lived burst of news reports does not automatically make an ordinary incident notable and I fail to see any historical significance in this one. — Rankiri (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Geeeeeez, really? Does this look like Wikinews? We ought to have a moratorium of 6 months on current events like this! JBsupreme (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel bad for everyone affected (especially the families of those killed), but it doesn't seem all that notable. TJ Spyke 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Prime example of where effort that would be appreciated on Wikinews went to waste, sadly. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Indians freeze to death in their homes out on a reservation in a horrible storm and for some reason it's not article worthy. --Dashbullder (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Try not to confuse "article worthy" with "newsworthy". It is certainly newsworthy. One thing, though: WE ARE NOT A NEWSPAPER. JBsupreme (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd add that I haven't seen in either the article or the linked news item that anyone literally froze to death. A second reference is made below to "damage, injuries and any deaths" but I haven't seen anything about a fatality. Power outages are an unfortunate byproduct of snowstorms, affecting all persons whose power lines are down, regardless of ancestry. Mandsford (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. AS noted, it is sad for the families impacted, but there are better venues for covering the event - and for seeking donations. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Blizzards tormenting Native Americans are just as worthy as any others. Note the damage, injuries and any deaths.--86.29.138.128 (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's great write off!--Cordilia Chasse (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - arguably, a weak keep, as it has gotten some coverage on DailyKos and other blogs, but sadly does not have staying power. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is weak on sourcing, but it does crucially provide a link to an article in The Wall Street Journal on this subject. That's good enough for me. This nomination is a good example of one of the common fallacies of deletionism: "I think this is boring and/or mundane." But it is not for Wikipedians to determine what is boring and/or mundane—our job is to review the sources to determine what is deemed notable by the world. If a weather event happens that I think is mundane, but has received a great deal of press coverage, then it's notable no matter what I think. Everyking (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT. There is no large geographical scope, no evidence of lasting importance and the sources do not constitute the "depth" given in policy; it's an article, not an editorial or critique. Ironholds (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to First North American blizzard of 2010. ---Dough 48 72 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
note I'm Googling up some sources to judge it by! 02:01, I have found 3 so far.02:07, I've substantially upgraded it and added the sources. 02:32 --86.29.139.140 (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not news. Coverage on DailyKos doesn't establish notability. Shadowjams (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- It's all crapped up with poor spelling.--86.29.134.225 (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- I see the AfD debate has be hijacked by 'deleteists'. I added WikiProject North Dakota|class=C|importance=Low to the talk page.--86.29.133.71 (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide a valid argument with your statement. Ironholds (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability - It dose not meet "general notability guideline". It was to short, the place is to small and no one died.--86.29.143.110 (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn. Today is when the show finally had enough info to deserve an article (despite the opinions of those below, the article should have been deleted before today because the article failed WP:N) because WWE issued a press release detailing the show. TJ Spyke 20:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWE NXT[edit]

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

Not enough info to warrant a article. The only confirmed info is the name, date, and possible people who will be on the roster. I would compare this to a movie article where the only known info is the basic plot of the movie and its location. In a couple of weeks there will be enough info, but not in its current state. TJ Spyke 21:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —TJ Spyke 21:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —TJ Spyke 21:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Simply because it's going to be recreated a week from now anyway. The current information on the article is supported by reliable sources according to WP:PW and the article itself was just in the middle of a significant expansion with other established users having offered to contribute. Just my 2 cents.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Talk about not even giving the article a chance. It's currently in the middle of a planned expansion and plus with less than two weeks until its planned debut, it's pretty pointless even considering deletion if without a doubt it will be recreated with more information likely to be revealed in such a short time.-- Θaks ter 22:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Planned expansion"? The current info in the article is the ONLY info that has been confirmed in the article, and even some of the info that is currently in is unsourced. So the "expansion" won't happen until WWE announced more about it. I am not against the article being re-created in the future, but the article was NOT ready to be moved back into the mainspace. TJ Spyke 22:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering Bullet used both the in use and under construction templates yesterday shows to me that he was in the middle of expanding the article, and he even mentioned here that he was planning to do so. I've already offered help with the article, and I believe it can be expanded even with the mystique WWE are current displaying when promoting the show. For instance, a production/show history section could easily be placed in right now charting last week's announcement of the show, not to mention briefly about the naming controversy with the Scottish feeder fed. -- Θaks ter 00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I hardly think the Scottish one is worth noting considering how unnotable it is. I'm not sure what history you are talking about as everything about the history of the show is already in it. TJ Spyke 00:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as stated above. The page will be recreated within the next two weeks anyway. There is no good reason why it should be deleted. It would be pointless to remove it now. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I have already countered all of the arguments. There is no good reason to keep the article, all the known info can fit in a small 1 paragraph in the ECW article until there is enough info to justify the show having a article (which it doesn't yet). TJ Spyke 00:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only this time, remember Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jair (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No sense in deleting it unless the show is canceled within a couple months. In all fairness, the article shouldn't have been created until the first airing...at least. Kjscotte34 (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- what's the point in deletion when the show airs in a week and half? Especially being a series aired on a NBC-owned network.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its well sourced there will be more added to it in a week or so.--Steam Iron 23:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The show is debuting in less than two weeks, and there's enough verifiable information to justify at least a stub (which is where the article stands at present). Jeff Silvers (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has been confirmed as WWE programming, and represents a major change in direction within the organisation. That by itself is a pass for WP:N so it should stay. !! Justa Punk !! 22:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's speculation that its a major change. This seems silly to keep a article that clearly fails WP:N just because info will be coming soon. It should not have been de-userfied yet, it should be userfied again and maybe brought back in a week. TJ Spyke 23:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speculation? Vince McMahon announces that ECW is going off the air and the talent are all free agents, and you deny what is obviously a major change as speculation? *dumbfounded* !! Justa Punk !! 23:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The speculation is that it represents a major change in the direction of WWE (which is hyperbole). TJ Spyke 00:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not speculation or hyperbole. It's fact. It's no different to a change in chairman for a company for instance. It's a major change. The only way you can object is to claim that the change isn't happening at all - which would be a ridiculous claim. !! Justa Punk !! 00:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes it is just speculation and hyperbole. How the blazes is it a major change for WWE? From what little info is known, WWE is basically just taking their FCW TV show (which airs in the Tampa area) and airing it nationwide. Yeah, that is a BIG change (:rolleyes:). Also, changing chairmans at a company doesn't always mean a change in a companies direction (yet alone a major one). It's ridiculous to claim it's a change at all for WWE based on what we know, it's totally ludicrous to claim that it's gonna be a major one. TJ Spyke 00:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        *shakes head* I'll leave it to the admin who makes the final decision on whether to delete or keep. It's quite clear that we have two completely different definitions of "major change". Let's see who's right in effect when the decision is made. !! Justa Punk !! 22:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even the nominator admits this will be brought back in a week, it's both silly and pointless to delete it for a week, there are much better ways to improve wikipedia. MPJ -DK 04:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my feelings known earlier. But this TJ Spike seems to have a bee in his bonnet about it. It clearly is something that he cares deeply about and it is obvious that he has real passion about it. While we may all see this as a sad and pointless exercise, TJ Spike clearly doees not. So lets just let him delete it. It will be recreated in a week or so anyway. At least this way, we can let Mr. Spike get on with his life without him having to worry about this terrible terrible situation any longer than he has to. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please. I might not agree with him on this topic, but there was certainly no need for that. -- Θaks ter 11:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, give the refs I think we can ignore whether or not it may happen, which would be the only reason to delete it. Less than ten days until it debuts why delete then recreate? Darrenhusted (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many pages on Wikipedia with less information than this and they stay on so why should this be an exception? Also it's going to debut in a few weeks anyway, so if it was deleted it would just cause people to have to re-create it again and it would just be a waste of time deleting this. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though there is 1 day left in the AFD, I am withdrawing based on the info WWE released today. TODAY is when the show finally deserved an article, before today it should have been deleted. To the above user, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a failed argument that is always rejected. TJ Spyke 20:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Barton[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who has not competed in a fully professional match so fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails general notability guidelines due to lack of significant coverage. -- Big Dom 20:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It pains me to say this (being a Preston supporter),but he's yet to even warm up our bench, so he fails Wp:ATHLETE, and also fails Wp:GNG as well. [[|DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)]]|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. He fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youth player not yet made it, has been signed up for 2 years and not played. Fails ATHLETE, only club profile and routine coverage as any local sports person gets. Contrary to User:DitzyNizzy's assertion article claims he has made the bench, but no evidence of such is provided. I did find one reference that claimed he was an unused sub when they travelled to Charlton in March 2009.--ClubOranje^T 08:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Proctor[edit]

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

Delete - It pains me to say this (being a Preston supporter),but he's yet to even warm up our bench, so he fails Wp:ATHLETE, andalso fails Wp:GNG as well. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. He fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. It looks to like someone just trying to save a pet article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youth/reserve player not yet made it to first team for matchday. Fails ATHLETE, only club profile and routine coverage as any local sports person gets. --ClubOranje^T 08:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Miller (footballer born 1991)[edit]

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

Delete - It pains me to say this (being a Preston supporter), but he's yet to even warm up our bench, so he fails Wp:ATHLETE, and also fails Wp:GNG as well. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. As far as I can tell, he has yet make his senior debut, proffessional or otherwise, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youth player not yet made it, fails ATHLETE, only club profile and routine coverage as any local sports person gets.--ClubOranje^T 07:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lea De Mae[edit]

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

Porn performer, now dead, who fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Unsourced claims of having been an Olympic-level athlete (no reliable sources found in English). References include apparently unreliable Czech tabloid. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes PORNBIO on basis of awards. Enough coverage for me to satisfy GNG without counting Czech publication (no idea if it is reliable). Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion it matters none that a source is not in English. Source 4 was unavailable to me, on the same day it was marked as retrieved, however I'm with Morbidthoughts that it passes based on other merits (3 award nominations and GNG as a performer/athlete). -Stillwaterising (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts and Stillwaterising. Dismas|^(talk) 04:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:PORNBIO, and with appropriate references, is likely to meet WP:ATHLETE as well. She has been nominated multiple times in multiple years for AVN awards as a pornographic actress. As an athlete, she was likely competing at the top level in order to be on a national team. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Messias Gabriel Liotta[edit]

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

This page has been created without permission by an unknown person providing wrong info and breaking the copyright policy by adding a player with a non-authorized recording Sunycult (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC) — Sunycult (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment- This article has long history. The version related to actor is revertible. Hitro talk 19:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No IMDB entry, no Google News hits, no reason to think this person is at all notable.—Chowbok ☠ 20:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, specifically, delete this article to remove its history, and recreate it under its original name "MGL", as a disambig. history (i checked it all, yuck), was as a disambig, then the initials of a nonnotable company, then a disambig again after way too many useless edits and a couple of speedy deletion requests, then its change to this nonnotable persons name. interesting this tla got hijacked twice in its history. i see nothing in its history, though, that is at all valuable for "historians". mgl is an acronym for multiple grenade launcher, and the international olympic committee abbrev. for Mongolias committee, and an abbrev. for Massachusetts General Laws, and abbrev for Monoacylglycerol lipase. thats it thats all.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually tried to fix it and source it, but I think that he's just not notable yet. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Movement (Italy)[edit]

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

Bootstrapping promotional article on an organization that fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG. Occasionally mentioned in passing in Italian media, but no significant coverage: I found nine relevant hits on Google News, but these were all one-line mentions in articles on broader subjects. The article references are somewhat misleading: many of those cited are simply articles devoted to topics the group is interested in and don't actually mention the group at all. In addition, the article was created and is principally maintained by an SPA with a conflict of interest, who appears to be using Wikipedia to promote the group and publish its manifesto. The Italian and French versions of the article, authored by the same editor, were deleted for the subject's lack of noteworthiness and the articles' promotional purpose. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Libertarian Movement (Italy) --Rrburke^ekrubrR 19:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- --Rrburke^ekrubrR 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- --Rrburke^ekrubrR 19:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I would say it passes the notability guidelines, I like editors with conflicts of interest, they are too much maligned, it,s only a guideline anyway, often they know a lot about the subject. It is clearly in need of a trim, but there is enough coverage and content to make a decent short article. When I googled the Italian name there were some decent looking articles in Italian Movimento Libertario Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't decided whether or not this article warrants deletion yet. But I felt the need to comment on a couple of points made. The "it's only a guideline" argument doesn't hold much weight; even WP:N is "only a guideline" yet it is generally the metric we use to determine whether or not to keep an article. Conflicts of interest are often a very big problem for Wikipedia, and so need to be scrutinized. They are never reasons to delete an article, however; what matters is the article subject, not the author. As to the notability, "Movimento Libertario" is not a reliable source; it's a web site run by the movement itself. As mentioned in the deletion nomination, there must be significant coverage given in independent reliable sources to show notability. I still haven't decided whether the sources already cited in the article don't qualify; it's difficult because I have no proficiency in Italian and have to rely on spotty translation software. -- Atama頭 20:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missunderstood me, I said, when I googled Movimento Libertario I got what looked to me in italian quite a lot of coverage from independant sources, not from the movement itself, I have added for that purpose a search template in the italian wording to the top of the article. I have not at this time yet translated any of them. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Naturally I also googled the topic before nominating the article for deletion. What I can tell you is that while the sources initially looked promising (some are from La Repubblica or Il Giorno), when you look at the actual contents of the articles instead of just the headlines, it turns out the Movimento Libertario is typically given only a single brief mention in the context of a broader discussion: the articles aren't about the Movimento Libertario to any substantial degree; they just happen to mention it in passing. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 21:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Off2riorob - I did misunderstand you, sorry. "Movimento Libertario" is a web site that has articles on it, which I was reading earlier today with the help of Google Translate, adding further to my confusion. As Rrburke said, brief mentions don't do enough to establish notability, so those articles may still not be enough. -- Atama頭 00:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, no worries, I missunderstand myself a lot. I will try to be clearer. Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi I am the creator of the ML page on Wikipedia, I have read that there is a debate on the English page of the ML for its deletion.

So I wanted to clarify some things that can be very useful for the discussion: 1) The italian page of Movimento Libertario has been canceled due to the injury of one who has proposed its deletion. ML Italian Page had all the requirements to be published, unfortunately L736E, has a different ideology opposite from the ML (and he doesn't know what is libertarianism and its principles), and he has repeatedly criticized and gave discredit to ML and libertarianism. Ask his opinion may be not useful for assess objectively the content of the page in relation to Wikipedia ENglish version. The italian discredit on ML has create a chain reaction also in the french version of Wikipedia page. 2) The English page of the ML on Wiki has references to major italian newspapers and national references (Corriere della Sera, Il Giornale, Il Piccolo, Avvenire), unfortunately, Il Giorno and La Repubblica do not cover our information because are center-left newspapers orientation not connected with libertarian ideology. 3) The presence in the national press is linked to ML activities of his members (like the ML coordinator Giorgio Fidenato), not focusing on the libertarian movement as a traditional political subject. As described on the page, it is not a party and do not participate in political elections but it respect the characteristics of the mainstream libertarianism. 4) The nickname Lib3rtarian it not mean that I am a ML supporter, I have used the name for the password only in reference to the page content, it is not a declaration of intent. 5) The English page ML on Wikipedia it was several times improved, even following the directions of other users, I have tried with others to reduce and lighten the page where this was possible. 6) The ML page in English on Wiki does not want to have promotional purpose because it does not participate in elections either by statute. It wants to draw as in the case of other wiki pages of parties or movements libertarians basic points of movement. 7) The article on the website of the libertarian movement is an notice to ML in relation to the objection of the italian page of Wikipedia, where it was noted,many other cases (outside the case ML) of censorship violations and discriminatory and subjective analize of the page. Bye. Lib3rtarian (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Lib3rtarian[reply]

Comment - If there is indeed significant coverage of the group in the papers you mention, please add the relevant references to the article to minimize the likelihood of its deletion. The article's current references fall into three groups:

Those from the group's own website or some affiliated person or organization
Those that do not mention the group by name at all
Those that mention the group only in passing

If there are better sources than this, it is a mystery to me why they are not included in the article in place of these. At any rate, it should be a simple enough matter to produce them and add them to the article. I have made a renewed search since your post here of the online archives of the specific papers you mentioned and, again, could not find anything that rises beyond trivial coverage:

In Il Giornale, the organization was mentioned in passing in two short articles on broader subjects.
In Corriere della Sera, that number was one -- and the "coverage" amounted to a brief mention.
Il Piccolo had two articles that mentioned the group, but devoted no space to it beyond these mere mentions.
Avvenire had no articles that mentioned the group.
Other references to the "movimento libertario" (uncapitalized) appeared to be about libertarianism more generally and seemed not to have anything to do with the group as such.

If this group has in fact received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," where is it?

As for the question of conflict of interest, I raise it not because of your username, but because you write for the organization's website: in this article on the group's website, you state that the leader of the movement "thanked you personally" for your efforts, as he put it, to disseminate and distribute the brand, website and ideas of the movement ("Ogni occasione di divulgazione e diffusione di marchio, sito, idee e Movimento è assai gradita"). Evidently he regards the purpose of the Wikipedia articles you authored as promotional. Do you disagree?

Finally, your claims that the versions of the article on Italian and French Wikipedia were deleted for political motives and that their deletion constituted censorship are inaccurate, self-serving and disingenuous: in each case the article was deleted because there was no evidence that the organization was sufficiently noteworthy to merit a standalone article. As with this article, neither of those articles would have existed but for the work of an editor who wished to use Wikipedia to promote the organization that was their subject. Here are links to the relevant deletion discussions so that editors can consult them for themselves:

it:Wikipedia:Pagine_da_cancellare/Movimento_Libertario

fr:Discussion:Mouvement_libertarien_(Italie)/Suppression

--Rrburke^ekrubrR 16:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nomination is another example of wikicommunism. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion which I smell is the motivation behind this nom masquerading as notability violation. Significant movement with enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Defender of torch (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please point to the part in the nomination that bears even the faintest resemblance to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And if you see evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, please consider adding references to the article as an alternative to ignorantly impugning the motives of other editors. Incidentally, if you skip a few lines above WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you'll find another entry entitled WP:ILIKEIT. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 16:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Someone needs to take the bull by the horns and go delete all the uncited content and then we can see what is left that is worth keeping. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to clean up and rearrange this article at one point, agree it could use more sources. Also is there perhaps there is another wiki page the information can be summarized and moved into so that it is part of an article but not an article unto itself? It does to me seem to establish notability, just could use a lot of editing. tempo libero 23:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempo libero (talk • contribs)

Comment - Hi, the ML is a movement against italian statism and not tied to political elections, our coverage in the press is only closely tied to our cultural and civil rights battle.

Moreover, the Italian press is traditionally reluctant to talk about topics libertarianism and antistate vision in our country, the same applies in relation to the activities of our movement. However, it was the case of a cancellation on Wikipedia Italy which has created problems in relation to proceedings on French Wikipedia. Obviously, if Wikipedia Italian cancel for assessment subjective reasons the policy page (and not on the shape and style of the editorial page), what can I do?. The contents of these ML, a voice is to give information, not a categorical imperative to share. ML is not a political party but a movement and a cultural association, is logical that it doesn't have much visibility but it is present throughout Italy. It would however be the case for determining the content, and since I have written a page based on the Libertarian party U.S. on Wiki english model; I don't think to have created a promotional page. Course in the coming days I will insert links to other online newspapers where Italians mention the libertarian movement and activities of its members more representative. Obviously, the activities reported (for example the battle Futuragra GMOs) are carried out by members of the ML, because the association is made up of many ML supporters. As regards the response of Leonardo Facco on the promotional page of Wikipedia, not up to me, since this is his personal free opinion I must not necessarily agree with him.... Bye Lib3rtarian (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Lib3rtarian[reply]

Comment - I have added some articles that I have found in online newspapers (there are also La Repubblica and Il Giorno), I hope that are sufficient to avoid cancellation of the page. Bye.

Lib3rtarian (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Lib3rtarian[reply]

Comment - I have increased the number of articles (from national and local online newspapers) that talks about the ML. I hope that these new materials can save the ML page and change the bad opinion about the ML.

This page don't want be a promotional page!!!. I have added all the information required (there are more information and links than the others Wiki page that describe others libertarian subjects!). Please don't delete the page!!!. Bye. Lib3rtarian (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Lib3rtarian[reply]

I think this page has to exist. It's very rich of informations and I never understand because it was deleted from IT-Wiki. Maybe it could be less long, some paragraphs could be avoided. Libertarian Movement is a little movement in Italy at this moment if you speak about absolute terms, sure, but it's the biggest movement supporting libertarian ideas ever created in Italy. And Libertarian is a very important political philosophy, there's no doubt about there. Mainly for this reason that page is necessary to wikipedia.94.161.221.196 (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The issue is the noteworthiness of the organization called the Movimento Libertario, not of libertarianism more broadly. That the organization is, as you put it, "a little movement in Italy at this moment," is precisely the problem: if it were a more noteworthy organization, it would have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," a principal measure of notability. Trying to piggyback on the notoriety of Wikipedia for the purpose of enhancing an non-notable organization's public profile is an abuse of Wikipedia. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 01:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rrburke, sorry but have you read all the links article reported?, Have You read the papers that write the ML?, Have You read the interviews and references?.

Have you read the content of this page in particular, (beyond the written notes on others pages incomplete in French and Italian Wikipedia version, that are not relevant for this case)?. I do not understand what you expect from a political movement that has no electoral purposes without considering it as merely promotional!!. I have reported (and as testimony of my good faith) the actual reality of the ML in the italian press (even by leftist journals!). Quantify things in the culture is not a helpful behavior, and neither judge with personal opinions. I've shown you that the creation and implementation efforts of the page as this is not a promotional page, such as the ML is a present reality and activities throughout Italy reported by various newspapers. I also reiterated the fact of writing a page on ML does not mean necessarily be its members or to communicate unverifiable information. Do you want you write a page on an Italian movement of libertarianism?. I have shown how there are the references and how I have express the content in Wiki page with verifiable sources. But for you nothing is good anyway! Obviously you have some prejudices that have nothing to do with the regulation name. Do you think more about what you said L736E (a fascist as shown on the network) that the information of prominent newspapers?. All the information are there, the references too, and it is obviously that all libertarian political parties and movements in the world is not in power and do not have broad support at the polls nor the U.S. nor in Canada, nor in Italy (especially since ML don't participate in elections by the Statute). Do you want delete all libertarian political parties and movement from Wiki page!?!. I therefore think that you are looking for excuses to delete it perhaps ill-advised by some Italian censor. Sorry but if you don't realize the information in references, it is natural think that there is your bad conscious on the ML page. Lib3rtarian (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Lib3rtarian[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thug Motivation 103[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

History shows that articles for this album have been PROD-ed and AfD-ed multiple times. Current version of article was created after decision to delete in first AfD. But the situation behind this unreleased album has not changed. Its possible existence has been noted in a few possibly reliable sources (for example, [2] and [3]) but the potential release date has only moved from "late 2009" to "early 2010." There is no confirmed released date or track listing. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER, WP:V, and WP:NALBUMS are all issues. Also worth discussion is whatever process would be appropriate (WP:SALT?) for preventing recreation of this article until the album really exists. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This upcoming album still does not appear to meet WP:N or, in particular, WP:NALBUMS. With no confirmed release date or track listing at this time, it also violates WP:CRYSTAL and wears HAMMER pants. Also agree that WP:SALT may be appropriate here. Gongshow ^Talk 01:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Duduk. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Armenian-Inspired Soundtracks[edit]

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

The first section of the article is simply recreating a article on duduk music. The rest of the article is full of original research based on the claim that since one musician is playing on these songs that means they are Armenian inspired. I think this is an insanely narrow topic for a list. Maybe Armenian influenced songs, or some other broad topic. Ridernyc (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment even if these songs have elements of Armenian music "Inspired" seems like a very POV term to me. I really doubt we are going to find sources where the composers say they were "Inspired" by Armenian music. They might say they were influenced, but inspired is a much stronger term. Ridernyc (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~^{(see below)}. Subjective original research not supported by the sources. — Rankiri (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think that Original Research applies to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the UNESCO. I think creating a new article using intensive and wide research made by the UNESCO, citing the works of the very few instrumentalists playing Duduk in movie and tv soundtracks meet Wikipedia Policy. This armenian instrument is part of a safeguarding project by Unesco and Japan.
http://www.unesco.emb-japan.go.jp/htm/d_ich_arm_duduk.htm
These armenian-inspired movie and tv soundtracks are so because they make use of the instrument. It doesn't exclude the possibility that these musics could be also japanese-inspired or arabic-inspired, when using additional instruments and mixing them with the duduk. But this article is about armenian-inspired music, not chinese nor german inspired soundtracks. This article is the first one specialized on armenian-inspired musics. The fact that one instrumentalist has been working with the same instrument, the Duduk, on dozens of soundtracks included in the list doesn't make a cause for page deletion. Thus, it seems logical to use this instrumentalist, as one of the world specialists and main players of this instrument, in more than one reference. This page should be expanded with the help of Japan and the UNESCO safeguarding project rather than deleted. PauperHell (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that just because a composition uses a Duduk it's composition was therefore "inspired" by Armenian music is pure POV original research synthesis. Your points about UNESCO are meaningless here. Ridernyc (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Duduk which seems to be the main point of evidence used to justify this article is not even unique to Armenia so I'm not sure why it keeps being brought ip and why it is part of this article at all. Ridernyc (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I play the saxophone, it doesn't mean that I take my musical inspiration from Belgium. The article's title reeks of subjective inclusion criteria and I really don't think that changing it to List of movie and TV soundtracks that made use of the duduk would withstand WP:SALAT. Also, original research refers to synthesis of material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. None of the listed sources reach the conclusion that the soundtracks in question were Armenia-inspired. — Rankiri (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —PauperHell (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominating an article for deletion

Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy (WP:DEL), which explains valid grounds for deletion. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing.

Read the article and review its history to properly understand its topic. Some articles may have been harmed by vandalism or poor editing. Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered.

PauperHell (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to be fixed here you are using the article as a POV coatrack. Ridernyc (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge with duduk music. I wish this would have been suggested first. This article has a lot of WP:Potential. The editor spent a lot of time referencing, I just think it needs a little more work before prime time. Creator, there is always WP:userfication once this is deleted. thanks. Ridernyc, would you allow this editor to userfy this article, or WP:incubate this article, and we can close this AFD discussion, while he works on this some more? Thanks. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 09:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope i see no effort to actually source the article, and I see dubious POV statements being made by the author. Ridernyc (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Armenian-Inspired_Soundtracks#References??????? Okip ^{BLP Contest} 08:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's author has cited to sources that show use of the duduk (a wind instrument that produces a different sound than one would find from flutes and clarinets and the like), and I think that it's a reasonable topic for an article. I suppose that the article could be about Chris Bleth or about the use of the duduk in movie soundtracks, but I don't see any real objection to this except for the title ("Armenian-inspired"). Move it to something that refers to the duduk, perhaps. Mandsford (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Duduk#Film Music, in agreement with Okip's earlier suggestion. Upon closer examination, it seems that not just some but all of the list's entries are linked to use of the duduk. I have no problem with moving the relevant content into the instrument's article, but I'm still very much against keeping the page in its current state. The duduk is not an uniquely Armenian instrument and the article's title is still in violation of WP:TITLE and WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. — Rankiri (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesized nationalist crap (and in spite of Ararat (film), presumably. The sources are misused. Jack Merridew 09:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SCIPHONE N19[edit]

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

Seems a non-notable mobile phone product. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not establish notability and, without that, a commercial product article such as this, is nothing more than spam. - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing to establish notability here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Clear spam: the only claim to notability is "ultra-lowprice", and the only link is to where to buy it from. Tagging as such. Pcap ping 21:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Not my choice, because I think it is pretty clear, but the article has already been turned down by an admin for CSD as spam. - Ahunt (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 21:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was declined already, deferring to that. Article does nothing more than promote the device as a low-cost Android device. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. This was speedily G11 deleted once today, reposted, G11 tagged again, speedy denied and taken to AfD the second time around. Pcap ping 23:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've declined the speedy again. But it needs to be deleted anyway. This way, if we delete it through the AFD and it's recreated again, we can delete it on sight as G4. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I speedied the first iteration, and clearly agree with non-notable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,I found this android model makes its way as an alternative bargin phone.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 04:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lipactin[edit]

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

Non-notable medicament. Only one study ever performed. No secondary sources talking about its importance, etc. No sources to write an article that goes beyond what Novartis claims for their product. Enric Naval (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Enric Naval (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero PubMed hits, only Google Scholar hits are unrelated CMAJ articles that happen to contain an advertisement for this product. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TimVickers. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (without deletion) to heparin. I've copied the reference to that page. Though P Sharma (Pharmacy practice 2006, 22(3):22-24) doesn't seem to see it a real trial, so maybe my edit should be undone. Narayanese (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but I don't think you can really redirect an article about a product with two active ingredients to an article on one of those ingredients. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete True, zinc sulphate has effects on its own. Given the safety concern of Bourne and others it's a bad idea for wikipedia to cover a drug that hasn't been tested for negative effects. The one thing an external review of german wikipedia's drug coverage complained about was the lack of listing of adverse effects I remember. Narayanese (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R E Romero-Probst[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NSPORT, WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; edit history indicates either WP:Autobiography or WP:Conflict of interest. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N not fulfilled by the sources provided. Ty 06:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((555randolph (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)))[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lotto in Mauritius[edit]

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

There is a lotto game in Mauritius. On its own terms, is that notable? The article does not appear to meet WP:GNG requirements. Warrah (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge a sentence or so into Economy of Mauritius. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it fails WP:GNG, also note that this might be a case of WP:SPIP--MaxEspinho (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename/create Gambling in Mauritius, such an article should exist, and lottos can be part of it. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Edelman[edit]

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

The article does not meet notability guidelines. Based on the article, which is little more than a resume, and on an online search, it seems that the subject is a successful but minor artist who has not met any of the notability criteria for creative professionals (not widely cited by peers, not an originator of a new technique, not a contributor to a significant body of work, etc.), and none of his work has appeared in major museum collections or in exhibitions beyond a regional level. Marylanderz (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It is not possible to examine the references online, limiting the ability to determine the depth or significance of the coverage in the book "Iron Work 2" so the endorsement of the article cannot be done with full confidence, but apparently he and his work are covered in the book "Iron Work 2" as well as in multiple articles in a specialized journal devoted to blacksmithing, "The Anvil's Ring." This would barely satisfy WP:N. Since he has had a career spanning 7 years or so as a successful artist, this coverage keeps clear of the "one event" hurdle. Edison (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article stands, but per WP:HEY there is a possibility of achieving WP:N. Ty 19:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Ford[edit]

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

~~Completely unreferenced article, tagged as hoax. I can find no hits for a "Stuart Ford" that match this guy's alleged story. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)~~ See my comment dated 10 February below. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No refs and no proof of notability. Yoninah (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no trace this can be found online, probable WP:HOAX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuffledThud (talk • contribs) 10 February 2010

*Delete - can't find any sources to verify the information. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- striking recommendation, looking at comments below I do not know enough about this class of articles to make a recommendation. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 03:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article creator has placed some marginally reliable references in the article, on the article talk page, and on my talk page; as a result I'm backing off on the hoax claim. However, my opinion is still delete on notability grounds. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Not notable in the usual way and WP:ATHLETE would not apply, in that Hednesford Town F.C. and Gresley F.C. are not the highest level of competition. If he ever appears in a game in the Premier League or a team while it's in the championship division (formerly First Division) of The Football League, he'll be a shoo-in. Mandsford (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - details match with this player. Was registered for some league sides, and article claims that he made a small number of Football League appearances. Warofdreams talk 12:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources show that he played for Doncaster Rovers in 1993/94,[4] when they were in the Football League, and made 5 professional league appearances for Rotherham United and at least 22 for Scarborough F.C..[5] I don't know what searches those commenting above were doing, but I found these easily by performing the obvious searches for the subject's name alomg with the professional clubs that he is said to have played for. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know how WP:ATHLETE's "highest level of competition" language applies to soccer/football leagues in other nations, where teams move up or down from one division to another (i.e, the teams with the best records in a lower division are promoted to a higher one, and the teams with the worst records are demoted). The Football League has 70+ teams overall, of which 24 are at its highest level in any given year. In North America, there's really no concept of entire teams moving up and down, although individual players are promoted to or demoted. Thus, in ice hockey, the 30 teams in the National Hockey League would be the top level in the U.S. and Canada, with a similar number of teams in minor leagues (AHL, ECHL, etc.). A similar analogy would be professional baseball, with 30 teams in the two major leagues (AL and NL), and an equal number at the AAA level (PCL and IL) and at the AA level (EL, TL, SL). I'm wondering if there's some type of guideline on whether highest level of competition refers to the highest division. If not, then the inclusion criteria for soccer/futbol/football may be broader than that of other sports. Mandsford (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "highest level of competition" language? Please read the guideline rather than make up wording that isn't there. This subject clearly passes the language that is actually in WP:ATHLETE, i.e. "competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "fully professional", I stand corrected on that point. With that vague language giving room for modification, most of the sports fans (including those of soccer/football) have made their own decisions about what that includes and what it excludes, so that there's not a free-for-all of including everyone who's ever received a paycheck. In the case of soccer/association football/futbol it turns out that the consensus standard is in "football/notability". In reading the language therein, it looks like cousin Stuart would qualify ("Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below:

Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional. Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games. Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played at the national level of league football are considered notable (no other level of amateur football confers notability). Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.") That being the case, I shall change my vote to a reluctant Phil-Bridger-is-right keep Mandsford (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your grudging (and please don't take that word as disparaging) acceptance of my point. I would point out that "fully professional" doesn't mean anyone who has accepted a pay check. The word "fully" means what it says - players in the top four levels of English football, which have gone by various names leading to the ludicrous position whereby the fourth level is called League 2, don't just receive a paycheck, but are expected to turn up every morning for training, so can't hold down any other regular job. There are plenty of teams below that level where players get paid to do an hour or two of training each evening after their day jobs and turn out for matches in leagues such as the Football Conference. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger. matt91486 (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My escapade[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Cited references are trivial mentions only. No significant hits found in a google search. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources about this band. nothing to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coveraeg for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Wikipedia article is currently inaccurate and not up to date however, current information can be found at www.myescapademusic.com, search engine results do significant hits. Criterion 10: 'Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.' has been met as their single 'It's Your Move', along with other tracks are featured on Season 2 of Rexona Australia's Greatest Athlete (www.greatestathelete.com.au). Citations need to be updated however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.177.154 (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since its nomination, the article has been extensively edited with new sources. A fair number of those were trivial (a "business registry" search that happened to find a business with the name "My Escapade"; a note of an appearance at a local festival; etc) and have been removed. Others are only slightly less trivial (a notice of the appearance of the band at a local high school function, etc) and have been left. Other than their contribution to the program Rexona Australia's Greatest Athlete, there doesn't seem to be anything of note here. If this is the band's only claim to fame, the article may fairly be redirected to the page about the program. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The source of recent updates, Project Guise, is an official source from the band and has referenced and updated the page to current information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.172.107 (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure in what capacity Project guise (talk · contribs) acts as "an official source", but that sounds like a conflict of interest. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following contribution is transcluded from the talk page.

Simply delete this page. Insignificant content and un-noteworthy. When there is something substantive to add the page will, I'm sure, be recreated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.121.59 (talk • contribs)

The result was merge to Na Nach Nachma Nachman Meuman. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Petek[edit]

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

This article fails WP:Notability, does not cite secondary sources, receives no Google hits [6] other than nanach websites, and appears to be an attempt to assign importance to the disputed teachings of Rabbi Yisroel Ber Odesser and his Na Nach movement. Mention of "the petek" is already included in Na Nach Nachma Nachman Meuman. Yoninah (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge into Na Nach Nachma Nachman Meuman where it belongs. Avi (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. Joe407 (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the founder of this page, I readily agree to have it merged with the Na Nach Nachma page, but I don't know how to do it, so invite one of you to do it. About secondary sources: The article clearly states that the Petek is just a claim of Rabbi Yisroel Ber Odesser, that means one either believes it or doesn't, there can be discussion of pro's and con's, but obviously there is no need for secondary sources! Two editors advised to merge the article, why does yonina want to delete it, why does he catigoricly (sorry for the spelling it's almost Shabos here) delete my work?Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New Song[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability and WP:NOR, receives no Google hits [7], has no secondary sources. Appears to be an attempt to prove the veracity of the "petek" promoted by Rabbi Yisroel Ber Odesser and his Na Nach movement. Yoninah (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources. Merge with R' Odesser or with Na Nach Nachma. Joe407 (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever, if anything, is not OR/SYNTH/thrown together haphazardly can be moved to Na Nach, but the bulk of this looks like an SYNTH essay Avi (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that this article should be merged with Na Nach Nachma, but I would like to point out, that this AFD is just based on yonina's hatred? for my work, if you study the history of the Na Nach Nachma page you will see how he just deletes very good work. Also what is the claim that there are no secondary sources?! The New Song is mentioned straight up in the Bible 7 times!!!! The Zohar talks about it!!!! What better sources do you need (or do you need to see the NY times quoting the Bible in order to validitate it, God forbid?!)????!!! It seems to me that you guys are the typical example of Jews being the most anti-semetic and hateful. Avraham, What to do you meant the the article is thrown together haphazardly?! The article accurately traces the history of all the known information on the New Song, or are there sources and info that you know about that I omitted? What type of gauge of truth is Google hits????? You guys are really clutching at straws to make a case against this article, shame on you. In any event I don't think any of you really care to listen, let alone help out, as I requested, so may the Great Awesome Holy Allmerciful One God have mercy on all of us.Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun: Wikipedia is not the place to whine about being mistreated or to attack other editors for disagreeing with you. I have always tried to be courteous in my messages to you and to explain my reasons for everything. I think you have been remiss about reading the Wikipedia policy pages which I have quoted to you — namely, WP:Notability, WP:Reliable sources, WP:SECONDARY — and trying to conform with their guidelines. (Please click on these blue links to read and understand the policies.) As to the way you put together this article, The New Song, please read WP:SYNTH. If you want to write an essay or promote your own ideology, please do it on your own website; it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Yoninah (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's characters. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luna (Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's)[edit]

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

Unreferenced fan cruft about a fictional character. Contains zero encyclopedic real world information other than pure in depth in universe which has no meaning to the average reader, article not strong enough to justify an article in its own right and lacks context. Google search revealed no significant coverage of this character. I'd recommend deleting this and redirecting and producing a referenced summary in a List of charatcers article instead. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 14:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's characters. This should be a nobrainer. —Farix (t | c) 14:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be easiest. If there is widespread project support by the most active members such as yourself I'd think that rather than loads of AFDs we could draw up a list of fictional anime/manga character articles that most believe are not strong enough to sustain a seperate article and redirect to a summarised list. Rather than it being done over night. I'd be happy to help you with that but the best thing would be to come to consensus with the project on the main talk page and root out all of the articles that should be redirected. I don;t expect it to be done straigt away, it may take weeks or months but I think it would be a good thing to draw up lists of similar articles which need redirecting and then simply do it, save time and possible and avoidable conflict I think....I have seen some pretty good articles on fictional charatcers though which have enough out of universe info and sources to make in encyclopedic in its own right. It may not always be easy deciding what to merge thats the problem we now face. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have no clue as to what you are talking about, nor about my, or any other editor at WP:ANIME activities on Wikipedia. So you can put a leash back on your attack dog. Nor can you go around ordering other editors to do certain work when they already have other projects on their hands. —Farix (t | c) 14:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, have it your way. I'll AFD every single article like this which clearly deserves to be instantly deleted until you decide to stop attacking me and we can come to a way of redirecting the bunch of other articles like this without this aggression from you. My mesagae above was perfectly level headed and was a proposal to discuss it rationally without having to open an AFD for each one, but once again your response it awful. I DO know what I'm talking about and articles like this should be deleted and merged into a summarised list. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 15:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary method of dealing with character articles should always be to tag it for merging or merge/redirect it there and then to whatever parent list there is (it depends on the article in question). It's more or less how we do things already, but as pointed out previously we don't have the manpower to do it in the speed you believe is required. There is no need to afd things like this unless it becomes controversial. Given the previous discussions you have raised and participated in, I would suggest you stop afd'ing articles and dumping the work on others. Either help, or leave it, otherwise people will start seeing your nominations in bad faithDandy Sephy (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do think that these nominations are WP:POINTy attempts to antagonize the anime project over the failure of those two biography AfDs. —Farix (t | c) 15:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or might it be that they are just a pile of s**t and should be instantly deleted? ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 15:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's excruciating point, unless you know the fictional work you can't be certain. If an editor with a good standing comes and i say "i know this fictional work, the best is delete and i rewrite from scratch" i'm sure this discussion would be different. Everyone is permitted to nuke fictional article contents as long as they know the fictional work enough and are ready to assume the post-nuking technical support. --KrebMarkt 16:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not certain, but I was pretty certain these recent AFDs are legitimate. But this is why I want your "expertise" to make such judgments rather than myself and how it looks to the casual eye and to distinguish what is salvagable and what is not. See the anime project talk page. You call the shots on what is soot then not me. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect Nothing that assert its own notability aside from the main work. Unfortunately it will have to get in the queue of anime/manga articles to be merged which is right now well above the 800 articles Category:Anime and manga articles to be merged. Personally i interpret those fiction character AfDs as Article for Discussion bypassing usual merge discussion where there is a risk of walled garden, higher in licenses like Yu-Gi-Oh!. Even if the outcome is near precluded, its enactment may take time. --KrebMarkt 15:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's characters. --Gwern (contribs) 21:41 12 February 2010 (GMT)
Merge to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's characters. Edward321 (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's characters. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akiza Izinski[edit]

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

Unreferenced fan cruft about a fictional character. Contains zero encyclopedic information other than pure in depth in universe which has no meaning to the average reader, article not strong enough to justify an article in its own right and lacks context. Google search revealed no significant coverage of this character. I'd recommend deleting this and redirecting and producing a referenced summary in a List of charatcers article instead. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 14:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 14:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's characters. This should be a nobrainer. —Farix (t | c) 14:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect No evidence, why it should deserve a spin-out article. Salvage what can be salvaged then redirect. --KrebMarkt 14:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's characters. --Gwern (contribs) 21:41 12 February 2010 (GMT)
Merge to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's characters.Edward321 (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge trimmed down, relevant content to the appropriate character list, then redirect as apporpriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Underground[edit]

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

No reliable, independent sources found to verify notability. Appears to be self-promotional. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Needs more third party RS. It does seem that the Tapcon2 affair is real.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteNo third-party sources in the article, I couldn't find any on google either. The site seems to be well kept-up and the Podcasts are current and done at a higher level than your average amateur, I couldn't get to the forums at work so I do not know if they are well trafficked but it seems like the magazine could be notable. The wikiarticle also seems to be of acceptable quality. I would like to see this article stay if someone can find at least one decent source demonstrating notability. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party sources and no indication this is a notable publication. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources RadioFan (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alderbrook Secondary School[edit]

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

Delete. There is no sources to back this article up. It is a one sentence stub that basically says this school exists, no notability claimed or proved Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. All secondary schools are notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, all secondary schools are NOT notable (and there is no guideline or policy that supports your OPINION). They all have to pass the general notability guidelines. For future reference (for anybody reading this), just saying "all secondary schools are notable" is the same as stuff like "I like it" (in other words, it's a junk argument and is saying that you have nothing to back up your claim of notability). TJ Spyke 00:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep While I disagree that all secondary schools are inherently notable, I agree that all referenceable schools are notable, which this one is. RadioFan (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its only notability (and mention in third party RS) is that a Minister once visted the school to promote something.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if only as a stub until someone decides to add some encyclopedic content. . .Wayne Riddock (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which seems to imply it has none at the moment?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The consensus seems to be that all Secondary Schools are notable. It is a poor stub, but that is no reason for deletion. Hopefully some one will expand it one day. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just like to point out that there is no guideline or policies that secondary schools are automatically notable, they have to pass the same notability requirements as any other article or they get deleted. TJ Spyke 00:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although there is no consensus on the notability of schools, experience suggests that secondary schools (i.e. ages 11 - 16) are rarely, if ever, deleted as non-notable. Sourcing is a different issue. Rodhull andemu 23:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- there certainly is a consensus, as shown by what Rodhullandemu says--as none have been deleted in 2.5 years, there is a consensus not to delete. Consensus is made by what we consistently do in practice. Guidelines are very difficult to change, and tend to lag considerably behind--and when they do try to forge new paths, editors tend to ignore it. The very concept of consensus is a practical working agreement. The reason, of course, why it has consensus is that experience has shown that essentially all high schools can be referenced if the effort it taken, and therefore it makes no sense holding elaborate debates just to remove the 5 or 10% which cannot. (As for the GNG, the one thing about the GNG guideline that does have full consensus is that it is subject to exceptions and special cases. Nothing in Wikipedia has to pass any guideline. We decide how and when to use them right here.

(btw, I would not say the age range for secondary schools is 11-16; in the US at least, 11 to 12 year olds are usually in primary school, and 12-15 in junior high school--we do not usually consider junior high schools notable unless there is really good evidence. High school students are usually 15-18. A better definition than age, is that it's the stage before university, and the final stage for those not going on to university. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know that there's an essay around here somewhere explaining why it's easier to assume that any secondary school can be proven notable, but I haven't laid my mouse on it yet. The crux of it was that recent history has shown that every secondary school is going to have at least one notable alumnus, significant local coverage, or in some way can be demonstrated as notable with a little bit of work, and that finding those sources is going to take less effort than a deletion debate (a debate which, as DGG notes, usually ends in "keep"). This isn't to say that it's accurate to say, "all secondary schools are notable," but the track record of those nominated in recent history confirms that they're mostly all notable. In these cases it's almost easier to prove the school is not notable. (I remember banging my head against the desk over this one until User:Jerry explained it to me; come to think of it I'm pretty sure he wrote the essay I remember. I'll ask him about it.)--otherl left 14:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The essay is Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Cunard (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus is that all high schools are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a Leading Edge school; a clear claim to notability and there are plenty of sources from which the page can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Ghost Adventures#Aaron Goodwin. Scott Mac (Doc) 16:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Goodwin (cameraman)[edit]

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

No sources that satisfy WP:RS found to verify notability. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- LuckyLouie (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the notability of either WP:CREATIVE (as a cameraman) or WP:ENT as an entertainer. The article has no valid, independent references that in any way support the notability of the subject. WP:CREATIVE requires such things as being regarded as an important figure by peers; having work that has become a significant monument; or developing a new technique, theory or concept. There is no evidence of any of this in Goodwin's case. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What to do with all those red links for this non-orphan? Twinsday 00:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I advise you to stop burying those links within dubious references. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed upon your request.--twinsday 22:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: With the addition of several social networking sites as external references, this is getting close to speedy deletion for self promotion... Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I neither created the article nor significantly added any new content. I wondered why it was created in the first place, but it was done a while ago. So if you think I'm Goodwin or any other cast member, sorry, I'm afraid you are mistaken.--twinsday 22:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge Some of the content/info/details that are not on the Ghost Adventures article should actually be merged into it.--twinsday 22:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Ghost Adventures#Aaron Goodwin to avoid redlinking. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Church of God's Grace[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/International Church of God's Grace

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

I originally PRODed this article, which was taken off without explanation (as far as I can see). There is no evidence that this is a notable organization. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not so much the article creator as midwife. I moved it at the request of an IP editor who I had unjustly warned when I did not realize that anons cannot create articles. Beyond this, I will abstain from these discussions. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If the claims are correct (and I do not know), this is a denomoination of over 900 churches. If so, it is certainly notable. The only possibly question should be of verifying the content. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem I had. The article makes a lot of claims to notability but I can't find a single source which deals with the church. Which suggests that some of these claims may be stretched somewhat. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Dispite the lack of source, I think it won't be hard to find them. This church is important in Brazil. Its founder keeps a very well known show on TV, as you can see here. Unfortunatelly, the article in portuguese lacks of RS, but the church is certainly notable. Lechatjaune (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources can be found by searching in Portuguese: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. My Portuguese is just about good enough to see that the news, books and scholar hits include many independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, but it's not really good enough for me to use them to source the article, so I'll have to leave that task to someone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP , Not only is this a well known faith-church but I believe that it has attracted some controversy as well. This should give indications of it being "note worthy". (Milestokilo (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of McMaster University Residences[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic, reads like an advertisement Mrheadhappyday (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Fails WP:GNG but also WP:V Codf1977 (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to McMaster University Residences and develop into a useful article. Similar articles exist for other universities. While individual Halls are usually not notable, collectively they are. One of these Halls has an article so that one is presumed notable. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this - I'm sure we can improve this one, and it looks like an eminently notable topic to me! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dormcruft. We are not a guide to choosing your dorm/residence hall. This is little different than lists of apartment complexes by town or of houses for sale. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology of space[edit]

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

Article fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. (Created by the author of Martina Löw and de:Raumsoziologie.) Compare: Social geography. --Kraut&rüben (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep The article is very confusing, but there seems to be something there. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree that there may be something here, but it needs a lot of work (such as inline sourcing). This one actualy could do with taking to ARS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, provisional. Google Scholar and Google Books immediately show tons of direct coverage by reliable secondary sources: [8], [9], [10], [11], etc. The given argument for deletion is clearly invalid and there are no remaining arguments left to be considered. — Rankiri (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides an overview of its field. It can be improved (and perhaps become a better placement for some of the material currently in the Lefebvre biog page), but has a decent stack of references mentioned in the text and listed at the end. AllyD (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some clean-up, pruning and broadening of historical content has now been done. Refs moved inline and also added from those identified by Rankiri. AllyD (talk)

Weak delete or userfy. Might be notable, but the prose is irredeemably confusing. Pcap ping 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a blatently notable topic. Userfy or incubate if needed. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Breakout (album). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up America (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wake Up America (song)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it does not meet the requirements per WP:NOTABILITY for songs. There are charts listed, but these charts are not notable ones and not approved per WP:CHARTS. Therefore, I think having an article is completely unnecessary. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't chart on a reputable chart, not enough sourced info for an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to the album - Romania and Poland have charts listed in WP:GOODCHARTS, but the ones listed in the article aren't them. Nor do I see any evidence of significant coverage - even the magazine link doesn't seem to be an article about the song. But if someone can point me to non-English (or English, for that matter) sources that provide significant coverage I would be happy to reconsider. Rlendog (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - I did find this article in The Huffington Post but there still doesn't seem to be enough content about the song in these articles to warrant a Wikipedia article. Rlendog (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. Whatever verifiable info there is about the song can be added there. Liquidluck✽talk 00:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordyn Coleman[edit]

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

Non-notable actress with only a few minor roles to her credit. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to be any reliable sources that discuss her to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coveraeg for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, she is a minor actress and has no real notability. RoboHomo (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I quote from http://www.tv.com/jordyn-colemon/person/85391/summary.html "Born in southern California, Jordyn Coleman is rising star with a recurring role on That's So Raven and other small parts in major films. She is fourteen years old and lives in Westlake, California." She doesn't merit a mention in the Wikipedia article about That's So Raven, and 'other small parts' doesn't suggest anything much in the way of other notability. Good luck with the career, though. Peridon (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe McGinn[edit]

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

Article (quite possibly autobiographical) about non-notable game designer. While this person has been involved in the production of some major game titles, I can find no non-trivial coverage justifying a self-standing biographical article. DAJF (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 03:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Another bio reconstructed from game credits. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Big publisher video games commonly sell in the million range, so I don't think the WP:ANYBIO exception can be invoked here. Pcap ping 03:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Irrespective of the copyright issue, consensus is that this lacks notability. JohnCD (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pencubitt House[edit]

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

The article was restored after the proposed deletion was contested at requests for undeletion, but the subject seems to lack evidence of notability, and there seems to have been some copyright issues with the content. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please judge this one on its merits. Arbitrarily0 is quite right about copyright concerns; the material was licensed under GFDL on the very day of licensing transition, and the article may have to be deleted regardless of outcome here. But copyright concerns can be eradicated easily by the external site's content being re-licensed appropriately. It would be helpful to know if consensus is that the article should not be retained even if that should happen. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I think we should completely ignore the copyright issue. It is clear that the copyright owner is happy for us to use the material, and the licensing technicalities can easily be cleared up if we choose to keep the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if the copy-vio issue can be resolved. The building is architecturally interesting, but the "history" is evidnetly promotional material for the present hotel. Since its website is the only source, a WP:RS issue must also arise, but that is probably better dealt with by tagging it for sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see that the building is "architecturally interesting": it seems quite ordinary to me. However, whether it is interesting or not, there is no evidence that it has any substantial coverage in independent sources. Not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to see/find any info that allows this to meet requirements, non notable.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 10:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where is the coverage in secondary sources? Why would there be coverage? I didn't find anything in the Cornish Guardian out of Newquay. In the Cornish Times out of Liskeard, I found no articles for 1998, one article 13 August 1999 with a brief mention about astrologer Russell Grant staying at the hotel. Nothing about the hotel. In 2000 there were three articles, two about club meeting being held at the hotel, and one mention of a book, in full: A book just published by an elderly lady in Sheffield decribes her happy days serving in the Land Army at Pencubitt, Liskeard. Primarily an account of the author’s childhood and growing up in Pitsmoor, Sheffield, ‘Lessons my Father taught me’ by Dorothy Platt contains photos and anecdotes about her time as a Land Army girl and the friends she made at Pencubitt. In 2001 one article mentioned that an anniversary dinner was held at the hotel. There were no articles 2002-2010. --Bejnar (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Adidas. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adilette[edit]

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

Poor language use (copy paste from spanish WP then run through an online interpret programme). All original research. Poor references (ie. ebay). Littered with weasel and peacock terms. Poor notability - suggested a merge with Adidas, which has been removed several times by Spanish IPs. No one willing to copy edit. Suggest delete and perhaps a brief mention be made in a sub section of Adidas. _Will^dow (Talk) 12:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Adidas per nom. Pinkadelica ^♣ 22:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Adidas. Retain Adilette as a redirect to Adidas ? &dorno rocks. (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge complete. Couldn't find anywhere appropriate to merge to on the Adidas page, so created a new Adidas Sandals page as I found a few more stub pages on various Adidas sandals to merge there. _Will^dow (Talk) 10:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EBossWatch[edit]

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

Not notable, appears to be an advertisement. Most online references are recycled PRWEB articles. Quantcast and Alexa report no significant traffic. Shritwod (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam and nn. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The eBossWatch Worst Bosses List andy (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. This topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The existence of press releases is irrelevant in determining whether a topic merits its own article. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." There are dozens of reliable sources that have covered this topic (as referenced in the article), including Forbes, CBS News, ABC News, Fox News, The Los Angeles Times, St. Petersburg Times, TheStreet.com, The Orange County Register, KGO AM 810, KFBK AM 1530, and numerous additional reliable sources. Abbashele (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (still). Not "clearly notable" at all. Quantcast rank #806,706 ("This site reaches fewer than 2000 U.S. monthly people."), Alexa rank #1,125,912, heck it doesn't even merit enough interest to get its own server. Alexa counts just 59 inbound links, and I think some of those are on other sites operated by EBossWatch. No listing in the ODP or any other directories of note that I can see. No Google News mentions in the past 30 days, in 2009 I can see exactly one article on Google News syndicated many times. So, as far as I can see there are about one million other sites that should be mentioned in Wikipedia ahead of yours, and I do stress the word *yours* as in WP:COI. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shritwod (talk • contribs) 21:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (still). Your statements about Quantcast and other traffic data are not mentioned anywhere in the notability guidelines. Therefore, traffic data and the other points that you mentioned (e.g. last 30 day Google News mentions) are irrelevant to determining notability. Wikipedia notability guidelines clearly state "topic 'has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.' The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." This requirement has clearly been met with this article; end of story.

If there are "one million other sites that should be mentioned in Wikipedia ahead of" the said article, then this points to a lack of Wikipedia resources in maintaining articles about notable topics. My brief experience with Wikipedia leads me to believe that this might be due to the fact that Wikipedians such as yourself are so "trigger happy" to delete new notable and legitimate articles that new potential Wikipedians give up and decide that it's not worth their time researching and preparing their first article only to have it immediately marked for deletion for reasons not mentioned in Wikipedia's guidelines. As a result, additional topics that the author had planned on writing articles about are thus not covered.

Wikipedia notability guidelines do not state that the "level of notability" of articles should be judged against those of other articles (an exercise that would be extremely subjective). Furthermore, I fail to understand the logic of your "should be mentioned in Wikipedia ahead of" argument. I don't see any reason why there should be a certain order that new article submissions should follow. There happen to be several hundred thousand less notable sites that are currently listed in Wikipedia, but this argument is also irrelevant to the notability of new individual articles. To briefly summarize, each article/topic should be judged by itself to see if it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (which this article clearly meets for reasons that I covered above).

Lastly, your statement "...and I do stress the word *yours* as in WP:COI" seems to contradict the following policies and guidelines set out on the WP:COI page that you mentioned: "Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this. During debates on articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage." Abbashele (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is very simple, you appear to have created an account purely to promote the EBossWatch website and for no other purpose. Wikipedia is not a mechanism for you to promote your website, notability has not been established and I must say that this looks entirely like spam WP:SPAM. Shritwod (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. If weight of words in support could save an article, there would be no doubt about the result here; but these debates are determined by the arguments in terms of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and among the contributors who cited them correctly there is a clear consensus that this is a neologism which has not (yet) achieved the notability required for an article. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naturoid[edit]

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

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

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

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

Neologism promoted by a not notable single author, and not used in any other source.Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: The original AfD was vandalised by an IP that edits this article. The original text is restored above.

Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, remain civil, seek comments from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

Delete Looks like an essay or school term paper that someone shoved onto WP. Does a lot of work fluffing up the term, but doing some searches shows that it's probably regurgitation of the book and author which produced the term instead of having sources which actually discuss the term. Fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete This theory, naturoids, is an essential part of a larger debate worldwide on the nature of the "artificial" - beyond artificial intelligence - similar to the exchanges of decades ago by people like John Searle, Joseph Weizenbaum, Feigenbaum, Douglas Hofstadter, Herbert Simon, etc.

Denis Baggi, Research Scientist in Computer Generated Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlouismusic (talk • contribs) 11:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC) — Dlouismusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not delete It is too early to say this term will not be used for this very important phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.164.61 (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC) — 76.101.164.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Exactly. The term has no use right now outside of the person who coined it, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete I believe this article about naturoids it's a fundamental contribution toward a better knowledge of human and social sciences, with a special and necessary link to the world of technology. Please do not delete this article.

Giovanni Messori, Social Researcher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.41.82 (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC) — 79.26.41.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Keep The article is not well written, but the term "naturoid" has found some usage in mainstream journals like Nature [12] . --MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is a review of one his articles really "finding usage in the mainstream"? Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete While the article could perhaps be improved, it is not badly written, and is clearly not mere hearsay or opinion. Although it regards a neologism, it is one that has obviously provoked discussion and interest within a small but ever-growing part of the scientific community; and if the English science writer Philip Ball feels comfortable using and discussing the term and its related concepts, who are we, in our ignorance, to question its merit? The comment, here above, regarding a "school term paper" is both unfair and unjustified. Care has obviously been taken to write grammatically correct and formal English on a subject that is both interesting and novel, which is more than can be said for a good many WP articles that have not been threatened with deletion. My investigations suggest that the article has been accessed some 18,000 times since June 2009, with an overall increment in the monthly rate, which must say something about its value to some WP readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.0.103 (talk) — 90.147.0.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Julian Locke, Ph.D. student in Methodology of the Social Sciences, Florence, Italy.

Comment I love the sockfest of people who know the creator of the term. Unfortunately, they haven't provided anything but personal opinions (besides melanie, although I disagree with her). Can we get some evidence that this term has been picked up by mainstream media or science? (Like Guy said, the Nature article only reviews an article by the author of the term). Angryapathy (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note As the author of the theory - and not of the article that I have only occasionally edited - really I do not understand the policy of WP. Is WP an Enc behaving in the same way as traditional Encs do, i. e. reporting only well established and universally recognized knowledge? By the way, such a policy contradicts the habit of WP to report on current events while neglecting the real-time power of the Internet in helping new academical traditions of research, at the only condition that their autonomous take-off is already a fact. I think that the rule of ‘neologism...to promote etc.’ is, in principle, appropriate if the neologism comes from of a teenager’s blog but not when it comes from a researcher who has published it since 20 years worldwide in leading journals, books and university lectures, even if, up to now, his theoretical proposal has not reached a... mass media recognition. And surely never will. Anyway, I used the term naturoid in the invited ‘artificial’ entry for the ESTE MacMillan traditional-style Enc without getting any objections by the editors – though I was known by only one of them. I added myself an ‘Impact and Applications Section’ in which are reported uses and references to my research that are at my knowledge. Nevertheless, I cannot guarantee that the term ‘naturoid’ will spread worldwide and will last over decades as if it were the name of a famous consumer product, of a singer or of an earthquake. But, de facto, it is a continuously published and quoted concept since 1990. Its ambition is to investigate the ‘laws’ governing every attempt to reproduce natural things through technology and, therefore, it cannot involve but a ‘niche of interest’, i.e. exactly what an Enc should be interested to. Thanks for reading and, please, forgive my bad English.

Massimo Negrotti - University of Urbino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.63.251 (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC) — 151.51.63.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

OK, I'm going to assume that you are who you say you are, as the creator of this term. I will first say that just because YOU publish it since 1990 and talk about it doesn't make it notable. Actually, since it has been 20 years since you invented this term, and no one else has picked up on using it, show exactly the opposite: it isn't notable. Also, this article regurgitates your research, which if it really is notable, should only be a paragraph. This article completely fluffs up the term that can be explained in a few sentences. This term is not ground-breaking; all you seem to have done is create another word for "artificial" and then wrote about the history of artificial creations. No wonder no one else uses the term. But, regardless, you are not Stephen Hawking; if he comes up with a term, other scientists (whether they agree or not) will pick up on it. You are not Stephen Hawking. And "naturoid" is not notable. Angryapathy (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. To be very blunt its a made-up word used by single 'researcher' and his clique. I'm a 'resercher' too. Just because I call robot monkeys monkeyoids doesnt mean that I can tell the world thats what the word means. This is not the place to promote your slang. So far your clique has violated several of the 'rules' here (recruiting meatpuppets, editing my entry here) which doesnt bolster your case. I would also have a look at the conflict of interest rules if you are editing this article. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article definitely has some major WP:V issues. A Google Web search for "Theory of Naturoids" returns seven results. Six of them are Wikipedia mirrors and the last one is Negrotti's biography page maintained by the book's publisher. — Rankiri (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Angryapathy is right in observing that "naturoid" looks like a synonym for "artificial" according to its inventor. Only the first paragraph of this article seems to be of any worth, and could be placed in the appropriate science article by those who know how to interpret these things. Meanwhile, the reference section does nothing to prove reliable sources; it is just a book list, whereas the lack of inline citations shows the paucity of secondary sources. Yoninah (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is also not a place to promote a neologism you have made up. Socks or meatpuppets flocking to an AFD lend an air of desperation and an implication of a lack of sound reasons for keeping an article. Edison (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more remarks Mr Angryapathy begins maintaining that the concept of naturoid isn’t notable, and ends discussing the reasons that should explain why it is not notable. All this is quite legitimate, of course, and also interesting to me, but it would be more proper if you should belong to a prize or chair commission rather to a pool of WPGuardians. Or am I wrong? Anyway, let me add some remarks to the substance of what you say. You – as a researcher - should be methodologically skillful enough to understand that the shift from the term monkey to monkoid would be trivial and clearly useless because the reference class of empirical objects would remain the same. On the contrary, the term naturoid proposes a shift of abstraction level, namely from the many specific classes of existing artificial replacements or reproductions of natural instances, that have their own specific names, to the the general class of such devices. The concept of artificial covers only seemingly the above general class because it is an adjective whose correct meaning is understandable only if one uses it after a noun (e.g. artificial grass or artificial intelligence). Just beacuse in the common worldwide languages ‘artificial’ means ‘man made’ or ‘not natural’, I myself gave up the former name I had given to the theory (in the first presentation of it of 1991 in my edited Springer book ‘Understanding the artificial’ I named it ‘the theory of artificial’ and it is also the title of an authored book of 1999) right to avoid ambiguities. As you know, the introduction of a neologism is a very delicate process that should be avoided as much as possible, but, at that point, it appeared to me as unavoidable, because, to sum-up, All naturoids are artificial objects but not all artificial objects are naturoids. Anyway, what is relevant, in my judgement, is the theory and not the term as such. It isn’t true that nobody has picked-up both the term and the theory (see the section ‘Impact...’) although in many quotations appears the term artificial instead that of naturoid. You are right saying that it is not become a mainstream, and, believe me, this is not my pretension. But the acceptance of it by dozens of journals and publishers in Italy, Europe, Usa and Japan (almost always through peer review process) encourages me in prosecuting on the same road. What is interesting, rather, is the fact that the journals that have accepted my papers, belong almost the times to the ‘general science’ category. This should be interpreted as a clear sign of the general character of my proposal (the character that, obviously, it wouldn’t have if I would speak of monk-oids or of, say, grass-oids, limb-oids or even humanoids). One could say that the theory is false but cannot say that it is unknown, never quoted and regularly rejected by journals and publishers. Therefore, I really do not understand why the visitors of WP should be deprived of the opportunity to take note of the existence of such a theory. You could name the article as an attempt to promote the theory, but, in the end, the promotion doesn’t concern a view published yesterday night only in, say, a college newsletter. In this frame, your role is intellectually very delicate in turn and, in my opinion, cannot be reduced to a pure computation of links, inline quotations, etc. This could be made more accurately by an ad hoc software.

P.S. Today's Google statstics are:

< artificial +negrotti > 3080 < "theory of the artificial" +negrotti > 6520 < naturoid > 10100 < naturoid +negrotti > 167 < naturoids > 5820 < naturoids +negrotti > 2350. This seems to me quite consistent with the above remarks.

I will move away from critiquing the theory of naturoids (although I have to ask, what is "artificial" but not a naturoid?) to explain how WP's notability works. See, this is not an academic encyclopedia. There are literally thousands of scientific journals, which many idea and theories being published every day. Do we go through every published article and find every new term and write an WP article about it? No, there is a threshhold. And the threshold which has been agreed upon by Wikipedia editors over time is that a subject, term, idea, etc. must be discussed in independent, secondary sources. That is what Wikipedia defines as notable. This says nothing about notability in general or within a certain field. Upon searching, a number of editors here have found that the term "naturoid" does not meet Wikipedia's threshhold for notability. In 20 years, very few people have used the term outside of you.

Wikipedia is one of the most popular sites on the internet, and having an article here about a subject definitely increases visibility. But this term belongs in the specific field in which it originated. Also, if you want to discuss your term with academics, then take your discussions to academics. As you have been presenting your case here on Wikipedia, then you receive criticism from the "WP guardians".

On a side note, after re-reading the article, this article isn't about naturoids; it's about Negrotti's book, "The Theory of Naturoids." Which, still, is a non-notable book. Angryapathy (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in the theory of naturoids or if my 'monkeyoid' example is a resonable analogue for it. Mr Negrotti misses the point. He has coined a word, no one else uses it. Therefore it is not notable. Wikipedia is interesteed in Notable concepts. Therefore Wikipedia is not interested in that word. The more geramane google search is <naturoid -negrotti> which gives us 1500 hits, one of which discussed the word as you use it, and that one hit is a review of one your articles. We aren't guardians, we just interpret the principals that define wikipedia. 20:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My last remarks

1. Dear Angryapathy (and others), I take note that you are not interested in my theory. Nevertheless, just because you do not resist to the temptation to ask “what is "artificial" but not a naturoid?”, I do not resist to the temptation to answer one more time your question, even because maybe it could be interesting for other readers. Artificial means something man-made or not-natural. Therefore, a milling or a cathode tube are artificial objects, because they exploit our knowledge on nature but have nothing to emulate in it, while an art. kidney or an art. rock are naturoids because they are art. objects that try to emulate something happening in nature. This is why, all naturoids are artificial objects but not all artificial objects are naturoids. The theory, starting from this dichotomy, tries to explain and to predict the general constraints and power that will limit and transfigure the natural instances when they become naturoids independently from the field they are designed and realized.

2. I’m sure that your role isn’t that, very impractical, of going “...through every published article...”. Furthermore, maybe that several scholars and researchers are not interested to circulate their theories or hypotheses before they have passed some threshold of notability. If I decided to accept the proposal of a friend of mine to circulate my theory through WP is only because, due to its general nature, I hoped to get some feedbacks from people coming from different fields. In this sense the ‘visibility’ you refer really could be, and has already been, very useful for my research, but, in the same time, also for some reader and surely not for improving the royalties coming from my books. However, at this regard, let me repeat that I wouldn’t insist in the discussion for preserving the article if I were conscious that it is still at the stage of a vague idea, never presented or, even worse, rejected as inconsistent by all referees or publishers. In the end, our discussion concerns the amount (your ‘threshold’) of shared relevance and not its professionally established existence.

3. You are right saying “...then take your discussions to academics”. This is what I do since 20 years, though in the limits of my resources, of course. The fact that nobody – but this is not quite true – has written a book or a paper for defending, destroying or discussing the theory doesn’t imply that it doesn’t exist as a public fact in a lot of ‘places’. If someone discovers a copy of a book of the past centuries reporting some geological or anthropological theory without being quoted by any coeval school of thought, WP wouldn’t be interested in it as a fact? Therefore, the point is: is WP interested in collecting what researchers do or only to what scientific communities (or, worse, mass media audience) place at the centre of some wide controversy or of some wide accepted paradigm? In the next 12 months a very important journal and two of the most worldwide important publishers will publish new papers of mine, but I’m sure that this fact will not modify my notability (wikipedianly speaking) since my theory doesn’t consist of a traditional scientific discovery (or of something provoking and, therefore, appealing for the mass media), but, more simply, propose a new methodological way to look at old things in the hope that new properties or regularities could become visible. Among the many scholars I has been and am in touch, let me report on two who criticized my theory during my lectures or meetings in the late eighties: John Searle from Berkeley and Douglas Hofstaedter from Indiana Uni. According to the former, the theory was too wide since, according to it, a diesel engine should be defined as artificial as compared to an Otto cycle engine; more interestingly, according to the latter – you will agree with him, probably – the concept of artificial (now ‘naturoid’) applies indifferently to all man-made objects, from an artificial heart to the Bay Bridge. These viewpoints are quite legitimate, of course, but being not able to accept the idea of different teleologies embedded in the two classes of objects is, to me, very improvident. You refer to S. Hawking, a very special person that, in my opinion, shouldn’t deserve to be implied in our discussion for deleting a theory... Nevertheless, I’m sure that he will guess immediately the difference which the theory starts from and, perhaps, its possible relevance in setting up a general conceptual frame for designers.

My conclusion. From our discussion I understand that

1_ the position of WPRules-interpreters is that of people strictly linked to a set of rules; 2_ the rules are consistent with WP final aim, that is that of 3_ accepting articles that deal with all what has happened and happens in the world provided it is already known. 4_ Such policy implies that WP will report even on well known theories of any sort – pranotherapy or magic included (by the way, I would be curious to know what you could have said having to discuss articles on this matter) but 5_ imposing to the WPRules-interpreters a great caution in accepting articles on subjects that claim to be rationally established but are not yet widely taken into account, on the basis of a fuzzy threshold of notability.

Being a regular, though cautious in turn, user of WP, I had different perception of it having read, some years ago, its noble mission statements. Thanks anyway to you, for having spent time in discussing the theme, and to the many visitors who have spent their own in reading the article and writing to me.

I have nothing to add, provided you do not have other questions to ask. Best luck.

Massimo Negrotti – University of Urbino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.33.9 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Well, the discussion has certainly come on apace! I see that we have moved on from the question of the entry's quality to that of its notability. Angryapathy, self-appointed judge, jury and would-be executioner (perhaps soon-to-be executioner), appears to have a fairly hefty axe to grind, and has found a hapless and suitably helpless victim to place upon his block. His intervention seems personal and malicious, as well as being wholly undignified and petty, as if to hide some pent-up feelings of inadequacy and impotence. I'm sure that's not the case; it's just the impression one might get. (I wish him every success with his article or WP entry on Alicyclobacillus.)

Nevertheless, in an ever-more-heated and ultimately vacuous tirade, bolstered by one spurious excuse after another, he appears to be picking on the little guy just because he can. Presumably, Angryapathy is but one of an army (a crusade, if you will) of eager expurgators. I just hope that he is not typical of the breed, and that others take a more measured approach.

For my part, I have spent many happy hours editing poorly written Wiki pages (a thankless and time-consuming task that has now become rather more occasional), and I can say that I've come across many entries, both mainstream and of minority interest, that have little or no encyclopaedic merit. Even some of the entries covering traditional encyclopaedic subjects are awash with personal opinion, partiality and plagiarism, all cobbled together with appalling grammar, spelling and (mis-)use of punctuation (and some of these entries cannot even be edited).

That's not altogether surprising in an encyclopaedia written and updated by its own users, and I can well understand why attempts are being made to clean things up a bit. But why start with the questionable issue of notability, when there are far more urgent concerns to deal with? – such as basic grammar and spelling, for instance.

My own intervention amounts to correcting grammar, spelling, punctuation, formatting, and some logical inconsistencies; but I can't correct basic factual content without finding reliable alternative sources, which are not always freely available (and I mean gratis).

Although I have fairly wide-ranging tastes, I have happened upon many an entry that is of absolutely no interest to me; but I should never wish to delete any entry just because it is of no use to me (or, indeed, to 99.9999% of WP users). The inclusion of minority-interest topics (even personally promoted ones), in what has surely become the largest and most eclectic encyclopaedia yet produced by mankind, seems unproblematic at worst and positively desirable at best. Indeed, I would go further, and say that WP's one and only real strength, apart from being free, is its (till recently, at least) ultra-eclecticism.

WP has been referred to, only half-jokingly, as "the world's favourite semi-trusted encyclopaedia", and I can't think of a more apt summing-up. A radical shake-up is certainly needed if it is to gain any real credibility; but why pick on individual articles as would-be victims of a great purge? A quick Google search brings up about 47,000 articles now living in the shadow of the gallows, while millions of others go unmolested, notwithstanding their patent lack of professionalism and authoritativeness.

Turning briefly to the entry in question, I would suggest that an article discussing the term (and its accompanying concepts) in any journal that in turn merits its own WP entry amounts, already, to sufficient notability, irrespective of any further diffusion or lack thereof. Or should the journal Nature Materials also lose its WP entry, for the crime of having included two articles discussing a term that has not been ratified by Angryapathy and his fellow-Bowdlerizers?

One last point: for someone who claims to be so talented at correcting mistakes, Angryapathy seems less than meticulous in spotting his own. For instance, the plural of bacillus, as any biologist should know, is bacilli, and therefore "Alicyclobacillus are of special interest" is catachrestic. Moreover, well-written and well-sourced are correctly hyphenated when they precede the nouns they qualify, but should not be hyphenated when following the noun. A well-written book is well written (or written well). Also, editing has only one t.

Finally, that which is so readily perceived as "vandalism" is often just the result of unfamiliarity, on the part of a would-be contributor, with the seemingly endless list of rules governing the editing of pages. I wish those in the know would just correct the resulting errors without making accusations of malice. We cannot all be Wiki-experts, and we cannot all be expected to know the minutiae of the correct procedures for every type of intervention. Some of us have other things to do.

Julian Locke, University of Florence (The views expressed here are entirely my own, and do not represent, in any way, those of any other person, organization or institution.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.0.120 (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks are rather humorous to me. You have resorted to discussing an article in my userspace that I haven't worked on in over 2 months and also critiquing my spelling and grammar. Your insults are silly, and you should be ashamed of yourself for spending so much time on it.

This page should be used for the debate of this article, not your research into the cabal against this article or that I didn't dot my lower case i's. Please stick to that topic. Otherwise, you are wasting words. Angryapathy (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it doesn't surprise me that you respond only to my criticism of your "talent", rather to the various other issues I raised. Perhaps it's time to come clean and make the accusation that I withheld in my lengthy comment. You are guilty of rallying your friends to support your cause. Your hypocrisy is outweighed only by your single-minded need to win a battle all of your own making, against an opponent armed only with naïve bewilderment. You'll win, of course, but I pity you. J.L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.0.120 (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to previous: "rather to the various" should read "rather than to the various other". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.0.120 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you mention "bias", you seem to ignore that fact that the vast majority of people supporting the inclusion of this article on WP are friends of Negrotti (including yourself). The other editors are judging the article's merit objectively based on their knowledge of WP policies. You are supporting it because you personally know the creator of the term. That is what we refer to as WP:COI. And I ignored your other comments because if you are petty and juvenile enough to criticize my spelling and grammar, why I should I bother treating the rest of your comments like an adult? Angryapathy (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability is the accepted criteria for Noatbility. Go read it. If you'd like to redefine it, start there. I nominated this article for deletion because it doesn't meet those criteria. You had a venue to argue the article's case, instead you decided to cry like a child. Lots of good grammar and spelling, but no ability to read the rules that govern. Go cry somewhere else. Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to

But I don't mention "bias" anywhere. Is this a three-way conversation? Am I missing a part of it? Getting back to the discussion, I do know Professor Negrotti, but he has not recruited me to support his cause. I just happened to consult the Naturoids page because I occasionally check pages that I have helped to edit. I am nobody's meatpuppet, and my interest was initially impartial; but when I saw the nature of the attack you and your friends were mounting against an essentially helpless individual, I felt that somebody needed to speak out for the underdog. I also wished to point out that Wikipedia seems to be contradicting its own fundamental philosophy. If it tries to match other encyclopaedias for authoritativeness, succinctness and style, it is destined to fail. Its real strength, as I have suggested, lies in its openness and eclecticism.

 Fumihiko Satofuka,Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology

Do not delete Because the concept of "Naturoid" is a key concept in Japanese workshops and publications —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.198.38.104 (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC) — 125.198.38.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

To Rankiri Please, search for 'naturoid' or 'naturoids' or 'theory of the artificial' (the former name of current theroy) and you will see very different numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.21.110 (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC) — 151.51.21.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Theory of Naturoids is prominently mentioned throughout the entire article. The very first sentence suggests that this rather elusive theory plays an important role in the development of the term. If we can't confirm the very fact of its existence, it probably means that the article has a big problem with WP:V. — Rankiri (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Rankiri again Yes, the term naturoid is central of the related theory, of course. But the article concerns the term, not the theory. In fact, I never used the expression 'Theory of naturoids' in any title of books or papers (apart the book "Theory of the artificial", 1999) but only within the text. This is why the article's title is Naturoid and not Theory of n. The section 'Impact and applications' reports on many places from various fields in which you can find references to my work both regarding the artificial and naturoid, that are the same topic. However, remember that the "The term theory has two broad sets of meanings..." (quotation from Wikipedia article 'Theory'). In my case, it means only a set of integrated coherent and non-contradictory statements, describing a class of empirical facts, from which one can derive verifiable hypotheses. This is the most diffused way to speak of a scientific theory. As far as the 'elusiveness' of the theory is concerned, please remember that your role is to discuss the acceptability of the article, not the theory (anyway, if you want, see my answers to Mr. Angryapathy). Best, M. Negrotti, University of Urbino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.51.81 (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your decision to give a proper name to "a class of empirical facts" is not supported by any sources, you really shouldn't make it a centerpiece of an entire article:

A naturoid, as defined by the Theory of Naturoids...

The Theory of Naturoids (originally Theory of the Artificial) attempts to investigate the human predisposition to imitate...

The Theory of Naturoids begins with the assumption...

A number of central concepts and principles lie at the heart of the Theory of Naturoids...

The Theory of Naturoids leads to an unambiguous conclusion...

By the way, you seem to be confused about the nature of my earlier comment. I didn't make any keep/delete recommendations based on the subject's notability. I merely pointed out the fact that a good portion of the article—at least the first three sections—is dedicated to a seemingly nonexistent theory and that other parts of the article appear to have similar problems with verification and proper sourcing. — Rankiri (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:N, WP:NOT#OR, WP:SYNTH. I don't think that the Nature article alone is evidential of the subject's notability. Google Scholar and Google Books results, which are mainly written by M. Negrotti himself, show no signs of nontrivial coverage by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. As discussed above, some parts of the article are misleading and unverifiable. The article has the appearance of being well-sourced, but from what I can tell, practically none of the independent sources discuss the subject in any detail. A number of pruned Google Web searches like [13] return about 150-200 unique results with no apparent signs of significant coverage by WP:RS sources. — Rankiri (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again to Mr. Rankiri: Really I do not understand what you mean with 'non existing theory'. Maybe you think that a theory exists only if there are books written to analyze, defend or to attack it and not when it is presented and published in dozens of books and papers, ::though poorly discussed::? What you have read in the article, is only an abstract, of course, but, anyway, it is neither a novel nor a newspaper reportage: it is, and will remain, an abstract of an existing theory. The same is valid for your phrase "some parts of the article are misleading and unverifiable". Misleading for whom? Unverifiable by whom? Do you have never heard of hypothetical theories, waiting for a complete experimental test? Being clear that one cannot test anything if the theory is not published. In this case, WP would delete an article on that theory or, simply, state that "it doesn't exist"? Do it, if you want. But you should be careful in distinguishing the article from the theory. The only good reason for deleting the article (not the theory, of course) due to WP rules, could be that of the diffusion of the term naturoid and related theory, but not their existence. If 'notability' is not ensured by the quotations the article reports, then delete the article. But you cannot pretend that I, the author of the theory, agree with you about the non-existence of my work. It is simply illogical. It should be more nice if you would say::dear professor, your work is very ineteresting, but, due to WP rules, an article about it cannot be accepted in WP. Best wishes for your future work!:: This is the usual style publishers and even referees follow for denying, say, the publication of a paper. It happened to me also, of course. But the publisher (even of an... Encyclopedia, like MacMillan ESTE, for which I was requested to write the entry 'artificial') or the editor never told me ::we cannot publish your theory bacause...it doesn't exist',::. As I said in a previous comment, the theory in question will be published in the next 12 months by four or maybe five leading journals and publishers, strangely persuaded that the theory, bad or good, however...exists.

It should be enough to read carefully the 'Impact and applications' section for understanding that the therm and the theory of artificial (now of naturoids) have been used, quoted and discussed in many occasions. This is not to maintain that my own theory is a universally known one, but only to defend the idea that a good, general encyclopedia shouldn't neglect theories at this stage of development.

P.S. My decision to give a proper name to a class of empirical facts" has a precise name in turn, within the scientific methodology: definition. Best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.167.90 (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're still having trouble wrapping your head around the fact that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and not a publisher or promoter of original thought. Would you be so insistent if this were the editorial board of Encyclopædia Britannica? My opinion is that the existing article shouldn't be currently accepted in Wikipedia's main namespace due to its noncompliance with the generally accepted standards of the project. If by any chance the article will get deleted, the decision should not diminish or impair the existing scientific value of your research as this entire process has absolutely nothing to do with its quality. I hope you'll realize this sooner or later. — Rankiri (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not deleteThe concept of naturoid (as well as of technoid) by now occurs throughout a body of scholarly literature by various authors. For example, Nissan (2000) discussed meat surrogates, Burmese choreography that imitates a puppet-show (thus, as a technoid emulating a naturoid), and a culture-bound, calendrically determined writing surrogate. Nissan (2008a) developed a classification of kind of explanation, and his examples made use of naturoid theory. Nissan (2008b) — analysing a nasty political cartoon by Thomas Nast, The American River Ganges, from 1871, New York — contrasted the half-human, half-crocodile monsters that Nast drew (the miters worn by swimming bishops were drawn as crocodile jaws about to devour children at Catholic schools in New York), to the following: zoologist Dr. Brady Barr, while preparing a documentary for the National Geographic television channel, approached crocodiles while dressed up himself like a crocodile, with his human body odour disguised by means of hippo dung. This representation was in turn dissected, by resorting to naturoid theory.

Nissan, E. (2000). Culture-bound Technological Solutions: an Artificial-theoretic Insight. In The Culture of the Artificial, special issue of AI & Society, Vol. 14, No. 3/4, pp. 411–439, 2000. Nissan, E. (2008a). Chance vs. Causality, and a Taxonomy of Explanations. Yearbook of the Artificial, Vol. 5 (2008), pp. 195–258. Basel, Switzerland, & New York: Peter Lang. Nissan, E. (2008b). Ghastly Representations of the Denominational Other in Folklore, II: Thomas Nast’s Crocodiles in The American River Ganges (New York, 1871). La Ricerca Folklorica, 57 (2008), pp. 148–154. E. Nissan, London —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.107.147 (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC) — 93.48.107.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see WP:SYNTH and WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The originator of this concept has been trying to get it accepted as a field of study for nearly 20 years, but his most cited work on the subject has been cited, according to Google Scholar, a grand total of three times by other people, probably because the fact that some human inventions seek to emulate nature is so obvious that there is no need to pay anyone a professor's salary to point it out. I can't believe that anyone intelligent enough to become a professor would wish to draw attention to the complete failure of his grand project, so can only conclude that those arguing for keeping this are enemies of his wanting to have an article which can only serve to bring him into disrepute. If, on the other hand, any of the commenters above really are colleagues of Negrotti, then I would urge them to have a little academic integrity and tell the emperor that he has no clothes, rather than to support this vanity. What will potential future employers think of you when they find that you make such ridiculously illogical arguments as that unrelated grammatical errors by a supporter of deletion mean that an encyclopedia article should have an article about your professor's pet project? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Angryapathy, Rankiri and Guyonthesubway I hope very much that you have not 'recruited' allieds like Phil Bridger! Beware: he works against your cause! For the content of his evaluation: no comment. Best, M. Negrotti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.48.134 (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been recruited by nobody, and work against nobody's cause. Is your comment what passes for academic discourse at the University of Urbino? If so, it places that institution in disrepute. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Yes, the guy that came to clean up the mistake I made with the formatting of this page is a meatpuppet but all the SPA's from Italy are not. Really... if this is what passes for analysis in your mind, you should consider a career change.Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have made my position clear in this AfD, and it is unnecessary to continue reiterating the same comments. I see one issue that many of the SPA's are confusing is that we are not judging the "concept" of naturoid, we are judging the "term" naturoid. And I, and others, have found that the term is used very infrequently outside of the creator of the term. And just for the record, I have not recruited anyone to this discussion, and I doubt any of the supporters of deletion have canvassed in any way. Angryapathy (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Negrotti's analysis of the theory, concept and philosophy of the artificial, in which the neologism 'naturoid' is central, makes an important contribution to the intersection of the philosophy of technology and the artificial sciences (including AI, A-Life etc). His work is seminal, even if, unfortunately, somewhat obscure in academia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.4.97 (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC) — 91.107.4.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:NOT and Meat_Puppets. Thank you. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closing note by IP-91.107.4.97 "somewhat obscure in academia" would seem to suggest that naturoid is not notable enough for wikipedia. However, I do not have the education to fully judge the importance of the subject, so abstain from vote. MKFI (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of scholarly sources for the subject. Three citations by other people is enough to establish notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be more observant. Two of these citations don't even mention the term, at all. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. — Rankiri (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see good sources, such as http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009NatMa...8...11B and http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/desi.2008.24.4.26. Therefore the article should be kept. If the author has a WP:COI, note this on the talk page, and manage the problem, but not with deletion. It is great to have expert contributing writers in addition to genearlist editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of those is a primary source written by the subjet and the other a single paragraph review of one of his books. This doesnt seem to exceed the notability hurdle Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is Naturoid. The subject doesn't write articles or books. The publication article and book, and subsequent citations establish sufficient notability. The WP:COI concern is a concern, but not a reason for deletion per se. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second source is written by Massimo Negrotti himself. As for the first one, are you really convinced that the following paragraph alone is sufficient for fulfilling the criteria of WP:N? You can see the entire article here.

Negrotti wants to develop something akin to a philosophy of the artificial . . . To this end, Negrotti has coined the term ‘naturoid’ to describe “all devices that are designed with natural objects in mind, by means of materials and building procedures that differ from those that nature adopts.” A naturoid could be a robot, but also a synthetic-polymer-based enzyme, an artificial-intelligence program or even a simulant of a natural odour. This concept was explored in Negrotti’s 2002 book Naturoids: On the Nature of the Artificial (World Scientific, New Jersey). Can one say anything useful about such a broad category? That might remain a matter of taste. — Rankiri (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that self-citations should be excluded as evidence of notability. Are all the citations self-citations? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All but the Nature Materials article quoted above. — Rankiri (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we seem to have a professor pushing hard his own neologism. However, he has succeed for long enough, and with http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v8/n1/full/nmat2346.html, I'm afraid that he makes our threshold, as much as we might dislike self-promotion, inluding promotion of one's own products or ideas. To me, this falls on the Keep side of a fine line. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change my mind if there's evidence of non-independence between Negrotti and Philip Ball/Nature Materials. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, can one somewhat inconclusive article—one paragraph, really—adequately satisfy the requirements of WP:N and WP:NEO? I believe the guidelines specifically ask for multiple sources of independent nontrivial coverage, not just one. And for the record, I haven't found any evidence that suggested a close connection between the two authors. I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one after all. — Rankiri (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:N says on the multiplicity of sources is currently underdiscussion, with mysefl involved. Feel free to weigh in there. I have asked the participants at WT:N to weigh in here, because I believe that this is one of few decent articles so close to the line. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term The quotation by P. Ball is important, but in the 'Impact...' section there are many other examples of usage of the term OR to the theory. Let me collect some examples below (only non-Italian). The term naturoid appears only in some of them because the early formulation was 'theory of the artificial' (as it is clearly said in the introductory section of the article). Nevertheless, if a quotation refers to Negrotti's work on technological reproductions of 'natural objects or processes' clearly it refers to naturoids.

R. Harle, Leonardo, (Oct. 2003) “'Negrotti has succeeded in outlining a basic theory of artificiality which he methodically and systematically expands throughout the book'

S. M. Ali, ‘The Nature of The Artificial: Augmenting Negrottian Artificiality with HeideggerianWhiteheadian Naturality’, Yearbook of the Artificial, Peter Lang, 2002. “Recently, Negrotti [1] has developed a sophisticated mimetic theory of the artificial grounded in three notions - observation, exemplar, and essential performance - that attempts to articulate the former.”

M. Morris, Cornell Uni (during a workshop)http://aap.cornell.edu/arch/news/newsitem.cfm?customel_datapageid_2892=231678 "Morris urged the panelists to define the Reef in a critical context beginning with definitions for a model versus a mock-up and offering the term naturoid as something crafted to imitate a natural object or process. Panelists discussed the project’s role as a pavilion representing a bundle of contemporary architectural interests including more traditional notions of craft."

Robotic Librarian, http://mechanicrobotic.wordpress.com/2007/06/21/all-your-automata-are-belong-to-us/ “As Massimo Negrotti hypothesizes in his 2001 paper Designing the Artificial: An Interdisciplinary Study, “as a matter of fact, since the dawn of civilization, man shows a great, twofold constructive ambition: one, the Prometheus syndrome, aims at inventing objects and machines able to dominate the nature grasping its laws and adapting itself to them; the other, in turn, the Icarus syndrome, aims at reproducing natural objects or processes through alternate strategies,’ as compared to those nature follows.”

Daniel Mittelholtz, Metacognitive Cybernetics: The Chess Master is No Longer Human! Univ of Saskatchewan, http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/Mittelholtz/MC.pdf “Massimo Negrotti has stated that there is an urgency in defining theories in this field. “The need for a theory comes both from scientific and from practical interests. According to the former we have to understand the artificial in order to discriminate it from the purely technological activity and try to understand also their different anthropological roots and intellectual motivations. According to the latter, we have to understand the different requirements needed for the use of conventional machines as compared to the 'use' of artificial devices. The intensity of today's technology, both artificial and conventional, makes such theoretical work legitimate both on technical grounds and also because of its urgency socially and culturally.” (Negrotti, 1993).

Gregor Schiemann, Nanotechnology and Nature On Two Criteria for Understanding Their Relationship HYLE--International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 11, No.1 (2005), pp. 77-96. “"Nanotechnology […] can be oriented either to reproduce natural things or processes, exhibiting different features, or to produce new objects or materials" (Negrotti 2002, p. 4).”

Gesine Lenore Schiewer: Zur Diskussion des Künstlichen in KI-Forschung und Ästhetik, Conference, Kassel, 2000 „Massimo Negrotti muß noch 1991 darauf hinweisen, daß außer Simons Ansatz aus dem Jahr 1969 kein wesentlicher Versuch unternommen wurde, den Begriff des Künstlichen als solches zu klären (Negrotti 1991, Preface). Er knüpft hier mit verschiedenen Publikationen, zuletzt Negrotti 1999, an. Negrotti bindet seine Überlegungen u.a. an einen "funktionalen Dualismus"

R. Capurro, ‘Ethics and robotics’,2009, IOS Press,Amsterdam “There is a tension between technoid and naturoid artificial products [Negrotti 1995, 1999, 2002]. The concept of artificiality itself is related to something produced by nature and imitated by man. Creating something similar but not identical to a natural product points to the fact that anything to be qualified as artificial should make a difference with regard the natural or the “original” (Negrotti).” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.178.199 (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets address these sources in turn....

R. Harle : A review of one of Negrotti's books.. possibly good

Yearbook of the Artificial : A journal edited by Negrotti... primary source.

Robotic Librarian : A blog...not a good source

Mittelholtz : A grad student's(?) paper , not published...not a good source

Gregor Schiemann : cant get the whole source, but appears to be a general discussion of nanotech... probably not on topic.

Schiewer : I don't speak german, not sure if a non-english source would be allowed any how

Capurro : Possibly a good source. Actually discusses the term.

Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the first source here and the last one here. The book review doesn't even mention the term and Capurro's paper uses only uses it once, in a highly trivial manner. Although I strongly disagree that WP:N can be satisfied with a single source—does it mean that all Nature Materials articles and their subjects are automatically notable?—let's not forget the fact that we now have one paragraph and one sentence for sourcing in a WP:NEO article with a whole bunch of WP:OR and WP:V problems. Since when did these underlying principles of Wikipedia become secondary to WP:GNG? — Rankiri (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be getting lost with some of the sources provided. It seems that some of the Italian IP's provide sources which do not mention Naturoid. So are we debating the notability of the term, "Naturoid", or, "The Theory of the Artificial", or Negrotti's work as a whole, or Negrotti's book? Many people are providing sources here like this is an academic essay. "This article talks about the artificial, which is central to the concept of Naturoid." See, that doesn't work on WP per WP:SYN and WP:OR. Unless the source mentions the term, "Naturoid" (not the artificial, and not Negrotti himself), the sources provided are moot and don't apply to this discussion here on Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More quotations (almost in Italian)

C. Beardon, ‘Computers, postmodernism and the culture of the artificial’ AI&Society, 8, 1994.”The phrase "the artificial" is being used increasingly to denote a new aspect or even a new form of society (e.g. Negrotti, 1991; Berleur, 1993) and warrants further examination.”. Quotation of Negrotti, M.. (1991) Understanding the artificial: on the future shape of artificial intelligence. Springer-Verlag, London. Ethos-Techne Seminario de Filosofía de la Tecnología, Posgrado UNAM, http://jelinares tecnociencia.blogspot.com/2009_09_13_archive.html “...además de que les puedo enviar de una vez el e-book (muy bueno, en PDF) de Naturoids de Negrotti...” G.O.Longo, ‘Homo technologicus’, Meltemi, 2001, p 79 “La nozione di artificiale (Negrotti, 2000) ha a che fare con la riproduzione verismile e accurata, a vantaggio di chi deve servirsene, di oggetti o fenomeni ‘esistenti in natura’...” then, he reports on the concepts of ‘observation levels’, and ‘essential performance’ (see the article Naturoid) from the book ‘Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi’, Laterza, 2000 A. Ardigò, G. Mazzoli’Le nuove technologie per la promozione umana’, Angeli, Milnao, 1993, quotes Negrotti’s work at pages 20, 183, 234. G. Priulla, ‘Vendere onnipotenza. Metafore pubblicitarie, tecnologie, miti del XXI secolo’ (To sell omnipotence. Advertising metaphors, technologies, myths of the XXI century) quotes Negrotti’s book ‘La terza realtà. Introduzione alla teoria dell’artificiale. Dedalo, Bari, 1997 at pag. 145. T. Barni, Hematology Meeting Reports 2007; 1:(6), at pag. 31 “Massimo Negrotti nel suo libro Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi (Laterza 2000) riporta che l’aggettivo “finto” secondo il Devoto/Oli definisce un prodotto ottenuto artificialmente, per imitazione… Chi definirebbe l’intelligenza artificiale una intelligenza finta? Così anche la definizione di artificiale come qualcosa che si contrappone al naturale, esce ribaltata dalla discussione che stiamo conducendo.

T. De Mauro, Univ. of Rome, http://www.nuovoeutile.it/ita_creativita_linguaggio.htm ‘teorie e pratiche della creatività’ “Massimo Negrotti, studia da molti anni ciò che, in gran parte, determina nelle nostre culture il rischio di eclissi del corpo, l'immenso sviluppo pervasivo dell'artificialità (La terza realtà. Introduzione alla teoria dell'artificiale, Dedalo, Bari 1997)”. S. Pratesi, ‘Verso una bioetica ambientale?’ (Towards an environmental bioethics?) L'artificiale svela l'ontologia del cyborg, mostrandone il carattere naturoide (3), il suo essere parte della realtà naturale ma, contemporaneamente, totalmente altro, sua immagine riprodotta ma tendenzialmente modificata, altro dall'uomo (in quanto prodotto) ma parte dell'uomo (in quanto riproduzione).” “… l'artificiale, oltre una certa soglia di complessità, tende a trasformare o arricchire l'esemplare e le sue prestazioni sia per ragioni intrinseche al suo essere comunque macchina, sia perché approfondisce le caratteristiche isolate dell'esemplare dal contesto” ( M. Negrotti ,Artificiale, cit., p. 38). (3) M. Negrotti , ult. op. cit, p. 12. Di Giuseppe Rotolo,Giuseppe Primiero ‘Dall'artificiale al vivente. Una storia naturale dei concetti’ (From the artificial to the living. A natural history of the concepts), quotations at pages 56, 64 of the book M. Negrotti (ed) Capire l’artificiale, Bollati-Boringhieri, 1990, the published by Springer-verlag, Understanding the artificial, London, 1991. R. Diodato, ‘Estetica del virtuale’, (Aesthetics of the virtual) Bruno Mondadori, 2004, quotation at pag. 63 of the section at pages 48-53 of the Italian book ‘Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi’, Laterza, 2000 M. Pugliara, ‘Il mirabile e l'artificio: creature animate e semoventi nel mito e nella tecnica degli antichi’ (The admirable and the artifice: animated creatures in the myth and the technology of antiquity) quotations at pages XXVIII, 3,if the Book ‘Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi’, Laterza, 2000 V. Somenzi, Relazione per la LXIII Riunione della Società Italiana per il Progresso delle Scienze, 1995, discusses at page 2-3 Negrotti’s work as reported in the book ‘Artificialia. Clueb, Bologna, 1995. E. Tedeschi, ‘Vita da fan’, Meletmi, 2003, quotation of Negrotti’s book ‘L’osservazione musicale: l’artificiale fra soggetto e oggetto, (The musical observation. The artificial between subject and object) Franco Angeli, Milano, 1996. “...la più antica delle ambizioni umane, che si coniuga presumibilmente col desiderio di immortalità, è stata relegata in una regione culturale caratterizzata dal puro fantastico, e ciò spiega perchè progressivamente, il termine stesso di artificiale abbia assunto una connotazione così largamente negativa, tanto che ancora oggi stesso è sinonimo di ‘non vero’, ‘falso’, ‘mera imitazione’ o di ‘espediente’” from M. Negrotti, Verso una teoria dell'artificiale, Serie Prometheus, Franco Angeli, Milano, 1993.)

Comment In my work, the concept of naturoid overlaps that of the artificial conceived as a reproduction of something natural, and not only as something man-made or, simply, not natural. The reason for having decided to change the early formulation (Theory of the Artificial) in the new one (Theory of Naturoids) is explained in one of my above answers. I approved the article on 'Naturoid' instead on the 'Artificial' right to avoid misunderstandings with current or commen-sense definition of artificial things. I think that the statements present in the introduction of the article makes clear this key point. An article intitled 'Artificial', maybe would have been less adversed? M. Negrotti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.130.96 (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the "do not delete" !votes above explain why it should be deleted - in particular, "It is too early to say this term will not be used for this very important phenomenon." wp:neo ErikHaugen (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Erik, it is not only a question of an 'If...then...else'. The fact that the term is not become a 'must' universally used doesn't mean that it has not yet reached a sufficient notability for Wikipedia. The author of the Do not Delete you refer, apparently knows the term. Anyway, be patient and give a look to the above dozen of quotations. Thanks. Post Scriptum. Some years ago, I gave a lecture at the Catholic University of Santa Clara right on the 'Theory of the Artificial'. You could ask them if there someone uses the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.43.11 (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge with Hula (software). Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo (software)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable alpha software. All the sources given in this article are either about a different software project, interviews with the developers, or release notes by the developers. Also, the article happens to be authored by one of the developers. Psychonaut (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, CLASSIC example of Wikipedia abuse by software developer. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hula (software). This seems to be a rename/successor project of another notable project. I'm not sure which name should be the primary article name, but a merged article should discuss each product and the transition between the names. LotLE×talk 01:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above, although some detail probably needs to be trimmed. Hula (software) seems to be a notable failure of Novell; this long interview in Der Standard mentions Bongo as a fork, and it's also mentioned here in The Inquirer, and here in Linux Journal. Pcap ping 12:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Hula (software) per LotLE and Pcap. Cunard (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hula (software) per the above comments. Swarm^(Talk) 00:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double jump[edit]

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

This page seems to consist of little more than original research. I can find no reliable sources for this video game move; in fact, most hits for "Double Jump" refer to something in Bridge (card game). Reyk _YO! 11:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head, there was an article in Kotaku devoted to jumping. Not the greatest piece of writing ever put to pixels, though. Nifboy (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDIC. Although the term is almost universally used by video game players, it's rather self-explanatory and just not as notable a concept as, say, its Olympic cousin, the triple jump. — Rankiri (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I say keep. It is a pretty notable move in a first person shooter or adventure game, and deserves an article about as much as it's brother, the rocket jump. I've added a ref, and will try to get another. Buggie111 (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The added source isn't WP:RS. Note "the content below is entirely editable" part on the top of the page. — Rankiri (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There was also an episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent that featured the double jump (no kidding!) move prominently. The rerun just aired this past week on Ion. SharkD Talk 16:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of this article is WP:OR junk. Delete history and redirect to Contract bridge or possibly create a dab to distinguish from the ice skating [14] [15] figure. It is a term used in some video games, so it could be added to a dab, but is it a notable video-game topic for a separate article? No evidence so far. There are other meanings [16] [17] [18] [19] as well, which may be worth including if they are found in the relevant articles per MOS:DABMENTION. Pcap ping 03:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 03:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have created double jump (disambiguation). Pcap ping 04:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move new Disambig page to replace created by Pcap. A short description is plenty, and since there are many other meanings it's the best solution. --Teancum (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to this. The original contents would still have to be deleted though. — Rankiri (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The arguments that he fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO are clearly stronger. Note that WP:ARTIST #3 requires independent review, not just the existence of a collective body of work. Kevin (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Trojan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - User:1989luke, the creator, has apparently been blocked for repeated creation of hoax articles but this article does not fall into that category. There seem to be some independent reviews which discuss this actor specifically. At any rate, if you're trying to determine whether he's notable or not, be prepared to see alot of penises. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO. smithers - talk 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete Fails the nominator's mentions. Dear God... why? Cutno (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep He has main roles in at least 39 published films and has directed two. He meets WP:ARTIST under the criteria for a collective body of work. If someone looks hard enough they'll probably find a reference to some sort of porn-award that will satisfy WP:PORNBIO too. If this were not pornography but, say, horror film, this article would never be raised for deletion. Ash (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't pass WP:ARTIST as his work hasn't "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Epbr123 (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - These popular films have had many reviews in gay interest magazines (periodicals). Appearing in so many films, it would be remarkable if there were not such reviews. A couple of references have been added to the article. Ash (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - (PORNBIO applicability) PORNBIO is for actors not directors. Though Trojan's notability is primarily as a pornographic actor, his work as a director should be taken into account. Consequently PORNBIO should not be the only consideration here. Ash (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think Ash is correct and this article wouldn't be in AfD if the boy had acted with his clothes on. We haven't proved that he meets WP:PORNBIO criteria but we must not forget that Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Major roles in 40 films globally distributed equals notability. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am suspicious as to whether the person who uploaded the accompanying photo really owns the copyright. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - (photo) Checking the uploader's contribution history and the image itself there seems no particular reason to doubt that the upload is genuine. A false claim would mean faking the EXIF data, which seems highly unlikely in this case. Ash (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The assertions being made by 96.233.40.199 are plainly false. JBsupreme (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant roles in numerous productions [20], many under the name of Eugene Procci. It must be remembered that porn stars rarely get coverage in mainstream press. He does seem though to have the attention of his genre [21][22]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't established by someone's Google hits or number of films they've been in. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arbitrary quantity. Epbr123 (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is however found in significant roles in numerous productions and in having a large genre fanbase. If he was not appreciated by someone somewhere, his carrer would have ended after 1 film. The links were posted to show the significant roles in multiple productions and to show genre interest in his work. And please, though apparently prevalent for porn actors, WP:IDONTLIKE is also not a valid argument or attitude in AFD discussions... not in this one nor the numerous others you've nominated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus on discussing the article, not myself. It's pointless accusing people of WP:IDONTLIKE when they can just as easily accuse you of WP:ILIKEIT. Epbr123 (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering your recent contributions here, perhaps you should try that yourself before expecting it from others? Ash (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
To Epbr123: I do not watch porn read porn or like porn... and I have voiced my personal dislike for porn at past porn AFDs. What I do like and respect are the carefully considered consensual guidelines created by editors long before I ever heard of WIkipeddia... and I do not support the AFDing of any article that meets guideline. However, thank you for allowing me to again repeat my dislike for the subject and reaffirm my respect for the guidelines that allow even such articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael do you know if any of the films this person has participated in are considered to be "notable" (as defined by Wikipedia)?? I ask because we regularly keep articles for seiyu who completely and utterly lack non-trivial coverage due their voice acting career. If I can be convinced that his role in a portion of these films is significant, and that the films are actually notable, I might be persuaded to change my vote for the sake of consistency and sanity. JBsupreme (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside form an Admin who is lightening their workload, perhaps let's get a better informed input from some of the other editors at WP:WikiProject Pornography, as they may be far more willing to spend time in research that requires them to look at the images that accompany the non-mainstream media searches, in presenting a list of genre-specific awards and genre-specific sourcing that would show genre notability for his films and thus his body of work, and so expand the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midori Hayase[edit]

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

This actor does not seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, having only one known role. Malkinann (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Malkinann (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Malkinann (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Malkinann (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Malkinann (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER notability requirements. --DAJF (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail any possible applicable guideline. Not referenced by Anime News Network, Animax, Newtype (magazine), Famitsu & Animate. No article in the ja wiki. --KrebMarkt 11:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. ("Only known"? by whom?) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google search is confusing it with a character from Shootfighter Tekken and the VA for that character, Yuka Mori. I did find this link listing 5 other roles, I'm not too confident about the site's reliability or if the roles are significant. —Farix (t | c) 14:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ShootFighter Tekken should be redirected to Tough (manga). From the ja wiki article of this manga, Midori Hayase is very unlikely a voice actor of this OVA. For the 5 others roles they correspond to 4 dating sims games and the remaining one is a re-edition. The prospect isn't great. --KrebMarkt 15:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete voice actress with (per the article) only one video-game role, and it wasn't even a lead role. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not even sure the article as it stands is real: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22Midori+Hayase%22 --Gwern (contribs) 21:43 12 February 2010 (GMT)

Delete unnotable voice actress who fails WP:BIO and WP:N; no significant coverage in any reliable, third-party sources, unable to craft any viable WP:BLP compliant article, must be deleted -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse Community Radio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is just a copy of the "radio station" website (and yes I know permission has been granted via OTRS). I believe it should be deleted for a number of reasons

COI - the only contributor is the CEO of the station. I believe this article to be nothing but a promotional vehicle. Wikipedia does not exist to promote or lend credibility to organisations.
Notability - it is a small station which only broadcasts on the Internet and has no transmitters. I believe it fails the general notability guidelines.
Nothing has been done to address the reasons for which the article was deleted before. It looks like the contributor has just waited a couple of months and simply recreated what was deleted before.

Simple Bob (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined a speedy (copyvio) following the OTRS ticket notification. However, a search has found nothing reliable (1 hit on Google News along the lines of "Pulse Community Radio will be holding xyz event" or similar). I cannot see that this radio station meets WP:N. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- These community-run radio stations are by their nature NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasons as last month: not only non-notable, not even the most notable thing of this same name. Also COI/SPAM/self-advertising. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable - also worries about COI & promotional material.— Rod ^talk 13:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they were actually transmitting on FM that would be notable, but since they are not, and newspapers have failed to mention them, I would say check again after they actually start transmitting and see if some coverage exists. In the mean time delete. Promotional text and POV text could be cleaned out so some reasons for deletion are not relevent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising (G11). SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan&partners[edit]

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

Notability not documented, still mostly an advertisement QEDquid (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as a piece of spam. Alexius08 (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alva noe[edit]

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

No establishment of notability עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, the article should be at Alva Noë, instead of the current title. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GS cites 955, 549, 308, 248, 94 etc. h index =19. Passes WP:Prof #1. I remind the nominator to carry out WP:Before before bringing articles to AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Also passes GNG-- see GNews: Reviews of her books in multiple newspapers [23]. Forbes article on her: [24] , among others. What is Google for, if not to make simple things like this very easy. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- His, not her. I bet he gets that a lot, though, with that name. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. WoS also shows lots of publications using "Author=(Noe A*) Refined by: Institutions=(UNIV CALIF SANTA CRUZ OR UNIV CALIF BERKELEY) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI". This may miss some pubs, though I'm also not convinced that there aren't some false positives in a simple GS query. Be that as it may, citations are pretty good: 298, 120, 42, 25, 22, 17,... for a WoS-h-index of 8. Normally, this would tilt toward delete, but the cumulative number of citations seems to be around 600, which certainly helps to compensate. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Winton[edit]

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

Non-notable glamour model Pontificalibus (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how is she "non" notable??

she has a HUGE list of appearances to date in many famous magazines and is set to host her own tv show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WELUVKATE (talk • contribs) 08:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Upgrading to Snowball Delete. Just because someone is in a magazine, that does not make them notable. Heck, I'd have my own page if that were the only criteria. As for the "set to host" a TV show, see WP:CRYSTAL. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so being on the front cover of zoo weekly as well as numerous appearances over the past few years, the front cover of the tv guide, working with celebrities like jessica mauyboy, molly meldrum, ronda burchmore, the wwe wrestlers, the crusty demons, appearing in xtina aguileras tour downunder dvd as an extra, numerous bikini pageant titles and appearances means shes a nobody? she even has her own facebook group! Kate on beauty and the geek official fan page Okay so maybe shes still establishing herself as far as "worldwide" but as far as we are concerned she is a fully accomplished AUSTRALIAN glamour model!!! She does Adelaide proud and should be recognised on wikipedia!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WELUVKATE (talk • contribs) 11:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I'm Australian too and I know that any 20-year-old with a hot body could do all of those things you mentioned and more. Next, having a facebook group is not notability - a mate of mine created a group dedicated to his right hand. Next, define "accomplished". Next, "as far as we are concerned" is not evidence of notability. Do you have any credible sources to prove it? Next, how old are you anyway? Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks extremely non-notable to me. --DAJF (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep well if any 20 yr old with a hot body could do it and more i dont see why they all shouldnt be allowed to have wikipedia pages! Shes a local celebrity to us!! and we believe she should be allowed to have a wikipedia, just because we were unsure of how to edit it and havent put all of her achievments to date on isnt a fair reason to delete it - i have added as many referances as i can for tonight I have work tomorow so please do not delete it while im in the middle of creating it! a mate of yours created a fb group for himself? a complete stranger created one for her! accomplished is defined as everything she has achieved to date and she continues to suceed, tv shows, guest appearances, bikini contests, beauty pageants, shes worked with many australian celebrities since she was a child, as far as "credible" evidence as I said im adding to it as I can, ive never used wikipedia before and am not hugely computer literate thats no reason to take it out on a fan trying to create a page for someone that inspires her. and how old am i? probably alot older than you think I am, regardless I dont really think my age has anything to do with it? She's also trying to raise breast cancer awareness amongst other things, so i think you should leave her page be! WELUVKATE (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ also fellow B&G contestant jeremy reading [[25]] has a wikipedia so why cant kate? WELUVKATE (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You just recommended that we Keep the article, so I struck your Delete comment, since it contradicts the substance of your second comment. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I appreciate that Ms. Winton is popular, and that she has had magazine appearances, but that doesn't really do anything to establish notability. On Wikipedia, we have to have news articles and other reliable sources that show that the subject is notable. In this case, we need articles that talk about Kate Winton herself - not appearances of Kate Winton as a model, or mentions that Kate Winton appeared somewhere. Even one good article talking about Ms. Winton and her career would be sufficient. Hosting a reality TV show has some value, as well, when the show premieres - but not before. Please calm down and discuss this article and its merits, as well as sources that can be provided to bolster it - don't take this request personally, as it's not. If this deletion request ends up improving the article, so much the better - that's the goal, after all. Work with us to keep the article, please. At present, seeing the lack of sources, we should delete the article under our policy - but I'm happy to switch over to Keep if sources come forward. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only arguments for keeping have been put forward by WELUVKATE, who would be well advised to read Wikipedia's notability guideline, because the arguments given do not relate to the guideline at all. Also the guideline on reliable sources and the policy on what Wikipedia is not should be helpful. No, appearing on covers does not constitute notability, and nor does having a facebook group: I could easily set up a facebook group for myself if I had nothing better to do with my time: that would not make me notable, either by Wikipedia's criteria or otherwise. "She does Adelaide proud and should be recognised on wikipedia" is not a reason either: Wikipedia does not exist to confer recognition on deserving people. Likewise "She's also trying to raise breast cancer awareness amongst other things, so i think you should leave her page be": Wikipedia does not exist to promote causes, no matter how good those causes are. And so it goes on with the other reasons listed ... Finally, "i have added as many referances as i can for tonight". Unfortunately a lot of the effort has been wasted: it really would be a good idea to read the relevant guidelines before putting any more effort into this. Many of the "references" are not references at all, but just links to web sites mentioned in the article. A reference is a source which confirms statements made in the article: for example the sentence "She is currently featured on Wayne Jone's photography site after working with him on many projects including a shoot for Miami based swimwear label LOOK Swimwear" has a "reference" attached to it: this should be a link to somewhere where we are told that Winton is currently featured on Jone's site after working with him for LOOK swimwear etc. In fact the "reference" is simply a link to the LOOK swimwear site, and tells us nothing about Winton. Even those references which actually link to pages where Winton appears do not establish notability: we need independent sources, not just links to the web pages of companies she has worked for. We even have a "reference" which is a link to Kate Winton's personal Facebook page. A Facebook page is not a reliable source, as anyone can set one up and write anything they choose. It is also unlikely to be an independent source. Finally, we have "fellow B&G contestant jeremy reading has a wikipedia so why cant kate?" Firstly, the article Jeremy Reading is tagged as possibly not being notable, so maybe it too should be and will be deleted. Secondly, even if this were not so, the existence of one Wikipedia article is never justification for another: it is possible that neither should exist, and it is also possible that one subject has received more coverage than the other, establishing more notability. WELUVKATE has evidently put quite a bit of work into trying to save this article, but unfortunately without much awareness of Wikipedia's guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's doing a job and doesn't appear to have done anything particularly noteworthy. Also, per JamesBWatson - a masterly exposition, in my opinion. (No, I'm not a sock...) Peridon (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ive added some more reffereances which are articles printed about kate, is this what you need? WELUVKATE (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not really. The only source you have mentioned that comes close to being reliable is the AdelaideNow website link (here) which seems to be more of a lighthearted opinion piece rather than an actual article, and in any case only mentions Winton in passing. The relevant guideline for you to read is WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Notability - this will explain what sources can and cannot be used, and what Wikipedia means by "notable". If, as you mention, she is about to become the host of a TV show, this will most likely qualify her for notability, but only once she actually hosts the show. Until then my suggestion would be to let the article be deleted. There is nothing stopping you from re-creating it if and when Winton achieves notability. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References not sufficient to meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. A borderline case, but there seem to be possibilities for improvement. JohnCD (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandaid[edit]

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion as an A7, twice. The author says there is notability here, so I'm taking to AFD for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this doesn't qualify for CSD A7, it is apparent that there isn't any notability here, and worse yet it looks as if this was authored for the purpose of self-promotion. :( JBsupreme (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not 100% sure about that. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. Hi guys, thanks for reconsidering. I do think there is notability. There are a number of reasons why there should be a Wikipedia page about it. The best one, I think, is that the Brandaid Project is part of UNESCO's global alliance for cultural diversity. But it's also got a number of notable patrons (a few famous actors, two of whom were nominated for Academy Awards). It's a partner of UNESCO, CARE, the Saatchi Gallery---all of those guys have pretty big wikipedia entries. PLus, the project is a major player in the whole movement to redistribute the world's income, to even up the income/market divide. The project is a lot like the ACUMEN FUND, which also has a decent-sized Wikipedia entry. So, I think we need a page for the Brandaid project. If the page is getting deleted because of technicalities, or because I need to write more about the project, let me know so that I can fix the problem. In response to JBsupreme, it's not written for self-promotion, and can you please explain why you think it is "apparent" there is no notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketonf (talk • contribs) 08:41, 10 February 2010

hahaha, if it helps at all, I was just searching for brandaid on wikipedia, so yeh...save the artcile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.154.111 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 10 February 2010

Made Changes. I agree that it read a bit like an ad, which is probably because my sources were their website and a few newspaper articles that wrote about the project. I think the changes I've made make it read like an encyclopaedia entry. If everyone agrees, can we get the page running normally. Or do we still think some things need changing. Thanks for the help everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketonf (talk • contribs) 08:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article currently links to an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail. This looks to me like a perfectly good source, but the question is whether this one fairly short article is enough to constitute "substantial coverage". My web searches suggest that the amount of independent coverage in reliable sources is not enough to establish notability, but I am not yet saying "delete" because I think it worth allowing time for sources to be found. Unfortunately most of the reasons above do not relate at all to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but that does not mean that there aren't sources waiting to be found. I suggest that Ketonf would be well advised to read those guidelines, and also the reliable sources guideline, to get a better idea what is required for a Wikipedia article. However, briefly, being a "good cause" or a "major player" is not relevant; nor is having famous patrons or being part of a UNESCO project, because notability is not inherited: we need direct evidence that Brandaid itself has substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The fact that the project is "a lot like" another one which has a Wikipedia article is not relevant, for two reasons: (1) even if the two projects are similar, one may have received more coverage than the other, and (2) it may be that the other one should be deleted too: the existence of an article does not prove that it satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, otherwise there would be no need for "Article for deletion" discussions. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI would like to see more third party RS, and some inline citations. It also reads like promotion so needs a bit of re-writing. But there may be something here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with everything said above. I just had another quick look for more sources to establish the organisation's notability. I've picked sources that have wikipedia pages. A lot of Brandaid's coverage in newspapers seems to come from journalists covering their art exhibitions (Brandaid sells art from the developing world). Here's an article in Italian about an exhibit they held in Milan: http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2009/maggio/28/Dalle_discariche_arte_Haiti_co_7_090528071.shtml (I include it because it's from the CORRIERE DELLA SERA, which is the biggest newspaper in the Northern Italy). There's also the CNN article that I've posted a link to on the Wikipedia page. Another article from THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER http://www.ocregister.com/articles/help-232575-d%C3%A9cor-handcrafted.html. One another is from Good Magazine http://www.good.is/post/brandaid-project-dedicates-all-proceeds-to-haitian-relief-efforts. Again, I include all these sources because each has it's own Wikipedia page.

I think this establishes notability. I can find more articles if need be.

If the entry reads like an advertisement, which I do not think it does, then as the author I'm probably not the best person to fix it. That is, unless someone would like to point out what needs changing, and then I can do it.

Thanks everyone.

Delete Certainly La Corriere Della Sera is asignificant source, but there is just one small problem: the article linked above does not mention Brandaid, even though it is about the same general topic area. The item from the Orange County Register does mention Brandaid, but the whole item is only three brief sentences. The post from the GOOD Blog is longer (about 9 sentences) and is entirely about Brandaid. However, I am afraid GOOD is not a reliable source: anyone can join and post; I know this because I have joined myself. When I wrote my post above I was unsure about notability, and tried to describe what was needed to establish notability, in the hope that it would be done, as I indicated in that post. However, what has been produced since in the way of sources is, unfortunately, even less suitable for establishing notability than what was there before, so I have come to the conclusion that it has to be a "delete". JamesBWatson (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few celebrities signed on for the cause and they got some one sentence PR from that, but there is no real coverage of the organization. Ridernyc (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Sources A Canadian newswire provider: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/December2009/10/c2178.html. Photos of people who attended there launch, which was sponsored by Vanity Fair and Dior: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/YwrHRkU4fWe/DVF+Vanity+Fair+Preview+BRANDAID+Project+Mask/20jwkLo7Xsh (I include it only to show that this isn't something small and unremarkable, but something that people know about)

Keep I've looked for more sources. I'm not finding much, so I can agree that the article is toeing the line with notability, but I'm still convinced we should keep it considering the sources we do have. Ridernyc does not seem to have to have looked at the Globe and Mail article, which was much more than one sentence. Nor does he--or anyone else for that matter--seem to have looked at the CNN article written by Diane Lane (sure, it's a primary source, but it's still in CNN--does that count?). The article in the Corriere does not mention Brandaid directly, but it does mention an exhibit of Haitian art that they held in Milan. I agree with JamesBWatson's criticism of the Good article (I didn't know anyone could post), but I checked the author of the post, and it's the Associate Editor of the magazine. That makes the post more reliable, no? There are some other one-liners around the internet, but I understand that we can't use those to establish notability (I don't understand why one- two-liners don't count, to be frank). So, yes, I understand that if this article gets to stick around, it does so only barely. I still think that what I've found is enough for it to merit it's own little stub, though. Anyway, I've done all I can do, so if you all still think it deserves to get erased, I'll support the decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.154.162 (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Just barely meets notability guidelines, article really needs to be expanded and these references included in an cohesive way though RadioFan (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skullptura[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. No sources given in article. Searching produces blogs, forums, numerous torrent sites, downloads, "warez" sites, a YouTube video showing how to play a game "ripped" by Skullptura, etc, but nothing that comes anywhere remotely near Wikipedia's standards as a source. (Article was prodded, and prod was removed by an anonymous editor without any reason being given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per James. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} I can haz review plz? 13:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, no notability presented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can find no coverage in a reliable source. Speedy deletion would probably have been appropriate too. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that A7 is applicable here; however, since it was previously tagged and declined by another admin I won't delete it without contacting him. (Also: no sources seem to be available so he fails GNG too.) Olaf Davis (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since that decline the article's subject has changed from a blog to a person, but A7 covers both. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I removed the speedy because I saw 1,000s of Ghits, and arguably the text said in so many words that it was notable. I disagreed with the speedy, but agreed it had little in terms of WP:RS, so I prodded it. Did I make an error? Sometimes Prodding or AfD allows editors a few days to find obscure sources. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think you made an error. If you have reasonable doubt then it is quite right to remove speedy, even if you think it is likely that the article should be deleted: it is right to allow more time in these "reasonable doubt" cases. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with James. I'd personally have probably A7ed it but I agree your argument makes sense and wouldn't say you were in error. The fact that we disagreed means PROD/AfD rather than speedy was indeed the best way to go. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per lack of coverage in reliable sources. Likely created as a vanity article by a single-purpose account. Does not meet WP:GNG. -- œ ^™ 01:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 17:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Adamson[edit]

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

Delete, unsourced BLP article which was identified 2+ yrs ago, but in point of fact has remained unsourced for almost ~~SIX YEARS~~ FIVE YEARS now. From what I can gather this is yet another non-notable myspace musician. JBsupreme (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree entirely with the above. No sources in article. Searching produces MySpace, Twitter, download sites, etc, but nothing remotely like coverage in a reliable independent source. The "record labels" listed appear, from what I can find, to be download sites, rather than actual manufacturers, and none of them seems to be notable at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After having a look around myself, I found the exact same thing JamesBWatson found- zero RS's to indicate notability. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I can find nothing to add to the fruitless searches already noted. The usual caveat applies; if the artist somehow becomes notable later, an article may be appropriate - but not yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I didn't create the article but I did add the photo, as I bumped into her backstage at a concert in Turkey. She is very well known on the psytrance scene. She was singing at the Roundhouse in Camden last year. She has a number of records to her name. The music in which she sings - chill out / psytrance - is not a genre that makes the charts but she is probably one of the most well known vocalists in the business, having done a lot of work with the most important artists in the psytrance scene, as well as release her own albums. Practically everyone into psytrance will have heard of her. She is also one of the more successful artists in the live scene, and gets jetted all over the world to sing. I vote for her to stay and if needs be I'll try and add more to her article to back this up. Tris2000 (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add to my statement above that, although she has made contributions to, and I am not exaggerating, possibly hundreds of tracks from the most famous exponents of the psytrance scene, she is primarily a live act. Just looking at her current schedule should give anyone who doesn't know her an idea that this is not some garage band person, this is someone who makes a successful living and gets flown all over the world, and people fly all over the world to see her. Tris2000 (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, can you cite a reliable third party source which corroborates what you are saying? JBsupreme (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if a source confirms that, it'd easily be a Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference to the BBC website, surely that's pretty reliable! --Tris2000 (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source you've added, which is a BBC biography for Simon Posford, mentions Adamson in passing: "The vocalists he (Posford) uses most often in his music are Michele Adamson and Abigail Gorton." This does not meet the definition of non-trivial coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the above. I cannot find significant coverage within reliable sources. The BBC ref isn't a bad try, but she's only mentioned in passing and nothing more. And partially composing an album that went Gold doesn't seem to cut it either, per the WP:MUSIC standard. Jamie S93^❤ 23:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was snow delete. Textbook example of WP:HAMMER. Jamie S93^❤ 00:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Be Anounced Nine Inch Nails Album[edit]

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

Classic WP:HAMMER.

No name, no track list, means it's too early (announced is spelled wrong)

Deprodded by original author. Shadowjams (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, its WP:HAMMER time. JBsupreme (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete even if the name and album are annouced and released a minute from now a page called To Be Anounced Nine Inch Nails Album will 100% useless. Ridernyc (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which criteria? Shadowjams (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No criteria, call it WP:Snowball this is a page that very obviously should not be here. Ridernyc (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the total news about this is this tweet from Reznor "1st official day of work in the studio." that's it total. The entire article is total speculation no one knows if this is an album, a NIN project, that it will be released in 2010. Ridernyc (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty perfect example of WP:HAMMER. If you're interested in a CSD category on the point (which from a very casual review looks like it'd be very useful) then I suggest you take a look at the talk over at WP:CSD. Beware, it's occupied by people who have strong opinions. Shadowjams (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:HAMMER those nails! Lugnuts (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL + WP:Notability + WP:RS. Only source is Twitter, and that only says that there will be a new album, with no information about the album at all. Then we have "many fans speculate...", which is about as far from Wikipedia's criteria as it gets. ~~WP:CSD#A9 ("No indication of importance (musical recordings)").~~ JamesBWatson (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A9 is a non-starter, because a necessary condition for A9 is that the artist's page does not exist. Nine Inch Nails exists, so this can't be A9'ed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had forgotten that. Still delete, though not speedily. However, it seems to me incongruous that, when the article doesn't even make a serious claim for existence, let alone significance or notability, the fact that the the artist has a Wikipedia article prevents speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter just says he's in the studio, it says nothing about an album, he could be working on anything. For all we know he's working on the rumored Gary Numan project [26] Ridernyc (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:HAMMER is a good essay that occasionally has exceptions. This isn't one of those times. WP:CRYSTAL is clearly breeched here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL What's next? Kim Kardashian's proposed first musical compilation project? These spec titles just keep getting crazier. Nate • (chatter) 12:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't really say anything other than here comes the hammer. (Especially when you (a) use Twitter as a reference - about as unreliable as you can get - and (b) can't spell "announced", "started" or "February" correctly.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone WP:SNOW this one. This one of the very few times I think an early snow closure is in order. Ridernyc (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not much more to say on this one; everyone above is correct. As a fan I am happy to learn that Reznor is in the studio again, and that makes me want to keep an eye on the official NIN website, not a non-viable WP article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL Rlendog (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. —SpacemanSpiff 07:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Bloom[edit]

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

Delete. This article was deleted recently via PROD and then reinstated, but still lacks evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable and independent third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eastmain has added some references and I think it looks okay now. JBsupreme (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability; doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I admit the article is lacks citation that directly points you to to the notability, it is still both a notable artist and a notable company. Would recommend a stub tag until the article is improved and references added. Isabel Bloom can be likened to Thomas Kinkade, an individual artist whose distribution became large enough to become a brand and company. Or, perhaps a better example is George Rodrigue, who became a regional icon in the south with his blue dog paintings. Walk anywhere in the Quad Cities and most people will be able to identify Isabel Bloom. It's like John Deere in that metropolitan area, sacred. I'm not sure I get the urgency for deletion, there are many other 22 year old college artists throwing up Wikipedia pages about themselves that deserve more monitoring. I commend your desire to keep Wikipedia notable, but this is not the page to focus upon. I'll state again, all it needs is a stub tag, and some good writing until that stub can be removed. I'm still a very novice writer here, and this is the first time I've ever been involved in a discussion over a page, so your edits to this page would be better than mine. I would suggest also suggest you directly contact User:Ctjf83 before taking further action, as he is a much more experienced editor with good knowledge of the notability of artisists and companies in that region of the United States. --Powerten (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Meets WP:CREATIVE. 1. The person is regarded as an important figure. Taking a tour or the production facility is even a recommended tourist activity. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new technique. No citation, but I believe her use of some materials (e.g. Mississippi River basin material]] was and is still unique. 3A. The person has created a significant or collective body of work. Thousands of sculptures are created on an annual basis, and distributed around the world. 3B. The person has been the subject of independent books and films. 3C. The person has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles (e.g. Times and Dispatch-Argus). 4. I am not aware of the person's work becoming a significant monument, or being a substantial part of a significant exhibition. There are studio galleries in Davenport, Iowa and Moline, Illinois which also sell the work. --Powerten (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not duplicate your !vote, one boldface "keep" is sufficient. JBsupreme (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - AGF on the new user please. CTJF83 chat 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:AGF works both ways, and no assumptions were made here other than stating the obvious. Furthermore this is hardly a new user but that is really beside the point. Get over yourself. JBsupreme (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established in books and news. CTJF83 chat 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. http://www.qconline.com/progress98/people/prbloom.html is from Progress 98, a 1998 collaboration of three Quad Cities newspapers, and seems to be indepth coverage in a reliable source. And http://www.mtmercy.edu/busselibrary/schome/artists/bloomi.html is a page from an online exhibit organized by a liberal arts college (not quite a book published by a university press, but reasonably respectable). – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the adds there Eastmain. I am willing to withdraw this nomination now, but there is still one delete vote left from Johnbod. JBsupreme (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can still withdraw the nom, and the closer will take that into account, although the extant delete stops a speedy keep. Ty 06:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now a referenced, notable article Vartanza (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. —SpacemanSpiff 07:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Ties: The Life and Work of Sally Mann[edit]

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

This film was nominated for but did not win an Academy Award, nor apparently any other award. Coverage in reliable sources consists of incidental mention of its Oscar nomination. PROD was declined ("ANY film nominated for an Oscar is notable. added another ref"). The only sources for the article are a NY Times article, in which the film is listed but not commented on, and a music credit for R.E.M.. Fails WP:NFILMS, WP:GNG. Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't believe that any film nominated for an Oscar would be considered a candidate for uncontroversial deletion via PROD. More coverage exists, e.g. Allmovie, Variety, confirming the Oscar nom and Special Jury Award at the 1994 USA Film Festival, NY Times article discussing the Oscar nominees, Roanoke Times article mentioning the film (fairly brief mention before anyone else insists on pointing it out). Lacks a really long in-depth article about it, but the nomination and award mean that it's notable.--Michig (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any film nominated for an Oscar (even these minor categories) is notable. Thanks to Michig for finding more sources - I'll add them in once I get home from work (several sites blocked here!) Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated with those refs. Lugnuts (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I strongly concur with Michig and Lugnuts: the Oscar nomination, especially for a documentary, which typically get less coverage than feature films and therefore fewer chances for notability to be established, is a powerful indication of notability. Not only that, but the subject herself Sally Mann is without a doubt controversial and notable. This film should never have been brought to AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Oscar-nominated movies are notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obvious notability, waste of time to be discussing it here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oscar nominated documentary (a rare enough event in itself) that has ample WP:V in Books and News. WP:SNOW closure anyone? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Rarity" isn't a criterion of notability, nor is an award nomination. Capsule reviews and plot summaries are specifically excluded as notable. No one has disputed that this short was nominated, so there's no point really to your Google results. You can't rent this film and you can't download it, so please don't pontificate about its obvious importance without demonstrating something more than that it exists. Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The importance is inherent in its subject, and the acknowledgement by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science of its quality (a nomination is, in its own way, a significant honor, because so few films are nominated). "Rarity" is, in fact, the very reason why we pay attention to awards and nominations: because so few films receive them. The more prestigious the award, the fewer the films that are in line to get them, and that selection carries with it notability.

On the other hand, the commercial status of the film is irrelevant to the question of its notability, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. The "rarity" of an event, per WP:N, can most definitely make something "worthy of note"... and the nominator's inability to purchase or download the documentary has absolutely nothing to do with WP:N. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You can't rent this film and you can't download it" - WHAT?! You're not being serious and using that as an arguement for deletion?! Heaven help 80% of films made before 1927. Not only was this documentary nominated for an Oscar, but it was screened at several film festivals (WP:NFILM#2) and won a Jury Prize at one of them (WP:NFILM#3). Lugnuts (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per everyone but nominator. Edward321 (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Clearly meets guidelines and has many reliable sources. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 10:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. The nominator clearly states that the article shouldn't be deleted, and notabiility has been established. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Harman[edit]

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion. I'm slightly personally conflicted here, because I'm what you might call a Sydney Anglican, which would encompass this subject (yes, yes, the subject is a Presbyterian, I know, I know...). However, I note that he is notable in his sphere, so I don't feel that we should delete. However, I'm taking this to the broader community to make a decision. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Wow, that was a mighty quick AfD. I'm still in the middle of writing the article. But I thought I'd put enough for notability - WP:PROF indicates that a festschrift usually satisfies the criteria for notability of academics. StAnselm (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey... I know. I did a PTC course, so I was a bit surprised that that he was tagged for speedy deletion, but then I figured it might be because of the circles I'm known in. I have had to take to AFD due to my own personal views as I can't just remove the speedy tag. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment anyone have any sources Google news comes up somewhat lacking, and a general search for "Allan Harman" Presbyterian returns about 200 hits most of them not about this Alan Harman. Google books returns a number of hits but there seem to be multiple Allan Harmans that wrote books on theology, so I have no way of knowing which if any were written by this Allan Harman. Ridernyc (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Try Literature and the church's mission today, from the National Library of Australia and also Approaching the Old Testament. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I did that general search, I got over 1000 hits, of which the first 30 were all this guy (after that, I got bored stopped checking). -- 202.124.74.53 (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: A7 clearly does not apply. The article makes two "credible claims of significance or importance" -- the existence of a festschrift and the quote in the second sentence. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for reasons above. Was it necessary to bring this to AfD? Could not the speedy delete tag, which was completely inappropriate, just have been removed with an explanation? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't think it was entirely inappropriate. There was no harm taking this to AFD. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is harm because it wastes the time of editors here with a clear-cut case when they are much overburdened. Leave it to the deletionists to make fools of themselves. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I have to disagree. Nobodies time has been wasted, if anything I've been able to find references I would not have found. So no waste of time going on here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with you Tbsdy, Unlike Jimmy Wales, I never accept the "ends justify the means arguments" that contentious behavior is acceptable as long as the end result is good. This kind of argument ignore more civil and less contentious paths. There are better ways to source an article that putting it up for deletion. Deletion, often a very contentious forum, should be a last resort. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 11:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ACADEMIC. WWGB (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bleviss[edit]

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

This was tagged as a speedy deletion, but a number of anonymous editors have pointed out that he is significant in the world of civil war token collectors, as well as being notable as a voice actor. I'm afraid I cannot judge the veracity of these claims, so I am taking to AFD. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Possible notable as a voice actor, though just 6 news archive hits and most are behind paywall. See Philadelphia Inquirer and "If the narrator, Alan Bleviss, sounds familiar, it is because he did the voiceovers on the Dukakis campaign last year and also has several corporation .", "Sheldon Smith and Alan Bleviss. Alan ... extraordinary sound and Sheldon Smith is a great storyteller .." ]and a couple of mentions as an actor. Google books has He is one of the author's "favorite voice actors" and several listings as cast. From the various descriptions of how familiar his voice is, that is probably his greatest claim to notability (a link to a recording would be a useful addition to the article: I found some of his voice work and listened to his ads for New York Life and CNN online). As for his presidency of the Civil War Token Society, is it that notable an organization, and is "[27] Ephemera" a reliable source? If so that would help his notability. Various generally all-encompassing movie bio sites have nothing about him. Edison (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 06:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - voice actors are actors, too. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , expand and further source article per coverage in Philadelphia Inquirer, Campaigns & Elections, Anchorage Daily News, Buffalo News, Pittsburgh Press. Its improvable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Crowley[edit]

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

Animator and film student who posts videos to YouTube. No evidence of notability per any guidelines. Wine Guy~Talk 06:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN (GregJackP (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: As a young animator whose work has been spotlighted on YouTube, and received some local media coverage, he may go on to garner greater acclaim in his future work. However, he doesn't meet the applicable WP:N criteria. Yet. –Whitehorse1 22:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't think we should short change local coverage per se, but not yet over the threshold. Vartanza (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manion's[edit]

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

I'm being cautious about this one - it was tagged for speedy deletion, however they claim to be notable as the largest online auction house in their speciality. Taking to AFD for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some references are made to literature or sites other than Manion's own. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Changed to Tentative keep. Looks better; still not sure if it satisfies notability but WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't allowed, so I can't complain :) Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of these references should help. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Air Force Public Affairs Agency . Scott Mac (Doc) 16:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4th Combat Camera Squadron[edit]

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

This non-combat (despite its name) PR ground support unit is not independently notable, as per WP:Articles for deletion/609th Air Communications Squadron. All notable data can be placed at Air Force Public Affairs Agency. It also incorporates primary source data. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Buckshot06 (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Air Force Public Affairs Agency per nom Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree does not seem independanyly notable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge along with 1st Combat Camera Squadron, 2d Combat Camera Squadron and 3d Combat Camera Squadron to Air Force Public Affairs Agency. Also see this for additional discussion of these articles. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: to Air Force Public Affairs Agency as the units themselves do not seem to be notable by themselves. I think they should be kept as blue links though, by redirecting following the merge. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colette carr[edit]

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

Claim of current single for which she is "known", but no hits for "Colette Carr" on Google News. Appears to lack notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I could find was this - the single is #7 on MTV.com's most viewed videos today. Given the company in that top 10, it's either (a) really weird that there are no news articles about her, or (b) the subject of a vote-stuffing campaign to get a non-notable artist onto the most viewed list. --Stormie (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I treated the lack of Google News results as a rationale for possible deletion. I saw that there were plenty of Google Web hits, but rather than run through them painstakingly to find something that wasn't an autogenerated listing or a MySpace site or a press release I figured that if a current singer with a current release is notable at all, there's gonna be something on Google News. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find more info. I couldn't Vartanza (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NTEMP, does not appear to be notable yet and can be remade if later when/if there's actually information to put on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VernoWhitney (talk • contribs) 20:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. mainly as a copyvio, but also no sourced to verify. This deletion should not prejudice a non-copyvio recreation if reliable sources are found Scott Mac (Doc) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tasos Bougas[edit]

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

Non-notable performer, no awards or unique contributions to arts, not seeing anything big on gnews. MBisanz ^talk 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 05:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. There is a chance that sources might be available in another language, if they ever show up I have no problem with the article being recreated at that time. JBsupreme (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @081 · 00:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Has had a single or album on the Greek national music chart? The promo piece at http://domains-90.com/aumiupmp/tasos_bougas_002.htm says he has nine gold albums on his wall, which would make him notable under WP:ENT if true. Is there a reliable published source for that? --Bejnar (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has nine gold albums. – EdvardMunch (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYPD ten-codes[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY I see no encyclopedic reason for this article CTJF83 chat 05:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess it's interesting and useful, but nominator is right that Wikipedia isn't a directory. I would say that some of this could be mentioned in the article Ten-code (which, depending on what day it is, sometimes has a list of such codes and their meaning for different police departments) and that a link would be provided for people who want to know more. This is not information that would be lost if the article is deleted. Mandsford (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a source of miscellaneous information , like an almanac, as well as an encyclopedia .A list of these for major cities --especially those cites frequently the settings of fiction--would be appropriate information. A list of this for every possible jurisdiction would not. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a directory, or the manual for the NYPD CTJF83 chat 07:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd add that this is nothing more than a copy and paste of this, so it's not as if this was a product of someone's hard work, nor will it be a matter of losing information (in other words, the link can be included in the Ten-code article. I guess the prospect of having lists for cities that are the settings for police shows may be what I find most unsettling. I'd rather that a link to the official NYPD codes site be added to the article about NYPD Blue or CSI:NY or any other place where it might be a welcome addition. Mandsford (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once again, lists are abused on Wikipedia and someone will almost always !vote to keep them. JBsupreme (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not Google, and this page happens to be ripped off a Google page ([28]). If this is not COPYVIO, it's much too localized compared to the Ten-codes article. Seems to me that Ten-codes is doing the job just fine without a merge from this one. Yoninah (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep the utility of the NYPD 10-code for fiction consumers makes it worthy of retention; it should be noted that including it in the main Ten-codes page would confuse, and does confuse, due to redefinitions. It's even more useful for authoring fictional content, for both writing and roleplaying contexts. Wfh (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already mentioned in the main [[[Ten-code]] article and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I put the web reference as an external link in that article so it's still easily accessible for those who want it. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection In The Shadow Of The Beast (Unreleased)[edit]

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

Non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm finding zero significant coverage in reliable sources for this unreleased recording; does not satisfy WP:N or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow ^Talk 17:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gongshow's argument above. Note that the articles for the albums by this band are fairly robust, but the band article itself is pretty anemic. Some of the historical info from this album article could be merged to the band article if anyone wants to expand it. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to satify WP:NALBUMS; no Google news hits (was careful to remove the "unreleased" from the search), does not seem to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete A9 by User:Tbsdy lives. (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going Away[edit]

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

Article about album by redlink band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn by nom -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five Get Over Excited (The Housemartins song)[edit]

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

Non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "My clothes are black but my bread is brown, I'm really into early motown." UK # 11, May 1987, so possibly notable. Enough for its own article? Finding online sourcing for this 1987 hit may be a bit difficult.--Milowent (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - got to number 11 in the charts, that seems notable enough to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noted the article doesn't actually mention that fact........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we delete these days when we used to expand? Francium12 15:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question. The article is doing no harm, though it merits expansion.--Milowent (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agreed. Reaching very high on a notable national chart makes the song notable. Also, what the article really needs is expansion, not deletion. I have just added an edit tag accordingly. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would certainly be in favour of keeping and expanding this, but other than the fact that it reached #11, the only other facts that I could find about is is that the video featured former drummer Hugh Whitaker being "kidnapped by his replacement, Dave Hemingway, and locked in a burlap sack", which I vaguely remember but can't find a source for (only his WP page and derivatives back this up), and that it was released in 3 formats: a 7" backed with "Rebel Without the Airplay", and cassette-single and 12" formats additionally including "So Glad" and "Hopelessly Devoted to Them". Better than nothing, though.--Michig (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have expanded the article a fair bit and uploaded a cover scan, and am happy to !vote to keep at this juncture. I am sure there is more press from 1987 about this song, but I can't seem to find any online NME or similar archives. I could swear there used to be a housemartins fan site that compiled stuff like that, but I can't find anything like that at the moment.--Milowent (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can not see this article is any different to scores of other chart hit singles on Wikipedia. It could do with a couple more references and a modest expansion, but the proposed deletion serves no logical purpose. How does it violate Policy, when other similar articles seemingly do not ? Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a song that charted in the top 20 in the UK is going to be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw This has been expanded and clearly displays notability. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Dave Alexander (blues musician). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Shariff[edit]

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

Musician. No assertion of notability. Orphan. Unreferenced. No content, stub. If deleted, revert back to redirect as misspelling of Omar Sharif. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shariff don't like it! We already have a page on this guy, Dave Alexander (blues musician), so let's just redirect to that.--Milowent (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per Milowent. Yoninah (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Milowent, but let's not forget to put in a hatnote pointing to the bridge player. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dave Alexander (blues musician) seems logical here. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to flameout. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windmill restart[edit]

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

Has been a stub for 3-1/2 years, and marked "in need of attention" for 6 months, and nobody has done anything with it. Essentially, this is a non-encyclopedic topic. It's hard to imagine writing an article on this subject. Maybe it should just be merged with flameout. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with flameout or something similar. Seems relevant but probably not enough for a standalone. Make sure the merge actually happens though. Not a simple redirect. (this is an easy copy-paste in with a ref to the orig). Shadowjams (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with Shadowjams - merge with flameout - but absent consensus on that has to be delete. Codf1977 (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with Shadowjams & Codf1977 merge with flameout. I think it should be mentioned somewhere so readers can easily understand accidents like Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701. --WideBlueSky (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nat & Alex Wolff: Live[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nat & Alex Wolff: Live

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

WP:HAMMER... cannot search for verifiable sources without official title and release date; only "possible" track list so far; only "confirmed" so far in a chat session at artist's website. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMERTIME; no confirmed album title, release date, or track listing found in reliable sources. Violates WP:CRYSTAL and with no significant coverage for this yet, it does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with their other article up for the deletion, the one on their first studio album, I move for deletion based on running afoul of WP:HAMMERTIME; lack of title and a "possible" track list makes this article premature at this time. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sargon Dadesho[edit]

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

The subject of this article has requested at OTRS Ticket:2010012310027541 that it be deleted as a vandalism/libel magnet; possibly doesn't meet WP:BIO. No opinion from me. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm on the fence with regards to notability, but if there is an OTRS ticket why can't we just indefinitely semi-protect this article until the pipedream of flagged revisions becomes a reality? Seriously. JBsupreme (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs to be improved, not deleted (but well outside my field of expertise) 7triton7 (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He appears to be notable. As for the vandalism/libel magnet, we can't just go around deleting the articles for controversial figures - otherwise what would we have to do with Barack Obama or Ben Bernanke? If it suffers vandalism/libel, you can always request protection at WP:AIV. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just adding my vote to build consensus. Agree completely with the above comments on need for improvement rather than deletion, and the possible need for protection. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that there is sourced negative material, that is when he wants it deleted. The article's present language needs some revision for NPOV and tone. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Merge discussion, however, is strongly encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BAE Systems Electronics and Integrated Solutions[edit]

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion, which was contested, but no reasoning behind the contestation was provided. However, I think it best to take to AFD. Do we really need an article about a division of BAE? Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - I agree that a speedy delete was not appropriate, but on the face of the article I can't see any assertion of independent notability or any reason that it shouldn't be merged back to BAE Systems Inc. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge per Mark83 below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect back to BAE Systems Inc. Not a notable division on its own. Ditto its two sub-stubs BAE Systems Electronic Solutions and BAE Systems Platform Solutions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably notable with 33,000 employees. Size doesn't guarantee notability, but it's a strong hint. -- Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Merge with Tracor in accordance with page 6 of this paper about the ownership of British defense contractors[29]. There is an indication that Tracor may be notable in its own right (see page 57 of this paper[30]) as a Business incubator. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Merge its subsidiary companies' articles into it - Employs 33,900 people. Has 100 sites in the US, UK & Israel. For year ended 2008 had sales of £4.4 billion, profit of £0.5 billion, and an order book of £5.2 billion. Producing the aerial warfare suite for the F-35, the biggest aircraft procurement in history by most measures. Website claims "a plane equipped with our engine controls takes off somewhere in the world every three seconds." There are many more ways in which this division is notable and I will produce a more exhaustive list if that is required. As one of the principal editors I'll admit that this is perhaps not properly established but I will work on it if the AfD debate results in the article being kept. Mark83 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Do we really need this nomination? I think not as it fails to engage with the topic per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is certainly badly written, and reads like PR puffery currently. Advertising is grounds for deletion of articles even if the underlying subject might be notable. The underlying business probably is notable, but I do not see the need for separate articles about each of its subdivisions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst I agree that the article needs a lot of work please be careful about statements like "badly written", it's not particularly constructive. As for the need for separate articles, explaining the entire history/organisation of BAE Systems Inc in one article would be extremely difficult to understand and/or hard to navigate for a reader unfamiliar with the topic. This article deals with the electronics/avionics/IT side of BAE Systems Inc, to include all this information in full AND all the information relating to BAE's rapid rise as a land systems manufacturer on one page is, in my opinion, impossible to do in a way that's readable and easy to navigate. Sub-articles allow the information to be presented in a more organised methodical manner, i.e. summary style on BAE Systems Inc. Mark83 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. It is badly written. I tried to purge the article of "solution"-speak, but have apparently been reverted. "Support Solutions" isn't English for a dry dock; as far as I can tell it means nothing at all. If kept, that kind of patent nonsense needs to be vigorously scrubbed from the article. In its current state, it probably does qualify for speedy deletion as advertising, regardless of notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As per User:Arsenikk below, "Solutions" is only used in the article as headings for legal company names. You quote WP:WTA, but that says not to use it in prose, it says nothing about quoting acutal company/division names. The actual prose does not say division X provides solutions etc. BAE uses "Solutions" in the name of many of its divisions, e.g. BAE Systems Military Air Solutions, BAE Systems Customer Solutions, BAE Systems Submarine Solutions. Do you suggest we change these to omit the word solutions? Of course not, because that would not be encyclopedic. The headings on this article are totally analogous. Mark83 (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it is hard to describe the entire historical content in one article, maybe the solution is to have several articles on business areas dicussion origin and historical relevance. I would look up a business here for those reasons if I was doing some research on them. Furthermore, while not proposed as a marketing piece, again for business research would like to know what they do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.32.192.33 (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is hard to see how a division with a £4.6 billion and 33,000 employees is not notable. BAE Systems is a featured article, and it is difficult to see how the vast potential for the nominated article could be incorporated into the main article without it suffering from undue weight. It is clear that to cover huge multinationals, such as BAE, the information must be split up into smaller chunks, through their own article, which can cover the smaller specifics of the corporation. Choosing a division is uncontroversial and logical segment to create as a subarticle, particularly when this division both has an industrial and geographic limitation. If other people are concerned about the prose quality of the article, be bold and improve it; bad quality of prose has never been a deletion criteria. I totally agree that the number of buzz words could be reduced, but if the company choses to call its dry dock division "support solutions", then at least mentioning this term has to be permitted. Overall, the article is factual and neutral, and in no way resembles an advertisement. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nominator agreed to withdraw nomination. Okip (formerly Ikip) 09:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barry John Walsh[edit]

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

Non notable athlete CTJF83 chat 02:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Undecided - he has been mentioned in a few news articles about his team or matches in which he appeared (for example, [31]) but he doesn't quite meet WP:ATHLETE unless anyone can argue that "inter-county level" is the fully professional level or highest amateur level of the sport. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to Gaelic football, "Teams from both London and New York compete in the annual All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, the highest level of the game." This makes it an international contest, and "the highest amateur level of a sport" (since Gaelic football is not played in the Olympics). Therefore having "won the All-Ireland football final with Kerry" (played on the winning team) fulfills WP:ATHLETE. DES ^(talk) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken back my Delete vote based on the argument of DES above. Now I'm neutral because under the strictest definition of WP:ATHLETE Mr. Walsh appears to qualify, but now I'm not really sure if it's him or his league that is truly notable. I'll leave it to others who are more familiar with this subject matter. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of references from newspaper articles on Mr Walsh (searches are tricky because there have recently been two other players on the same team of the same last name, one this player's brother). None of these is truly in-depth coverage on its own, but I think taken together they add up to "notability" and I could have added as many more of similar content.DES ^(talk) 18:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether enough WP:BEFORE was done on this article. Disclosure: I declined an A7 speedy on this. DES ^(talk) 18:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I "dropped the ball on" this. It was my lack of understanding sports in other countries.CTJF83 chat 07:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that the notability here is somewhat marginal. And the original article was unsourced and a bit fannish in tone. But there are now sources saying that his play in Italy was professional, estimating that he earned $100,000 in one season. That seems to fulfill another criterion of WP:ATHLETE. DES ^(talk) 16:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin WOW Look at all the references added since the deletion,[32] this article has been significantly improved. Okip (formerly Ikip) 22:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the incredible referencing efforts of DESiegel. Okip (formerly Ikip) 22:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played (and, incidently, been part of the winning team) in the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, the highest level of his sport, so passing WP:ATHLETE. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination. CTJF83 chat 04:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing Good Works! Small Acts That Make a Big Difference[edit]

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

Declined A7 nominee. Fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly a social movement in the future but too vague at present for verification or notability. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - The words Doing Good Works! Small Acts That Make a Big Difference are the title of the book. See the amazon page ^[1] the site Good books in bad times ^[2] , Barnes and Nobles ^[3] and many other book stores ( just google "Doing Good Works" )Please let me know what other info you would like and I can try and provide it for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dman9969 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC) — Dman9969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

For the Record - I don't know if this is true for everyone but the footnote links in the above vote are not working for me. But the book in question does indeed exist. Here is another link to the book just in case. Here is the problem though: the WP article under discussion is not only about that book or key people like the Pittsburgh Samaritan. Instead the article advances the idea that "Doing Good Works..." is either a developing or fully-formed social movement. But the only sources for this argument are the book (which is not linked to the article as I write this) and the two news stories about the Pittsburgh Samaritan and his YouTube video. Arguably, those sources only indicate that this is a single event, which causes a problem for notability. One could also argue that the article is violating the WP policy of no original research to argue that this is a social movement. There is also a lot of soapboxing in the article, however well-intentioned. Sorry my original vote was far less detailed than this comment; my vote remains the same. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopaedic. If someone wants to write an article about the book, with sources etc, fine - but there's nothing in this article to keep. Smappy (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Seems to be an advert for a book and website--Work permit (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable book and the article doesn't even read as being about the book. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Nat & Alex Wolff Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/First Nat & Alex Wolff Studio Album

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

Only source is artist webpage, cannot search for other sources without confirmed album title and release date. Will have to declare hammertime until there is enough information for someone to create a true album article in the future. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No confirmed album title, release date, or track listing; it's WP:HAMMERTIME. WP:CRYSTAL applies as well. Gongshow ^Talk 17:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:HAMMERTIME, it doesn't have a confirmed title, and gives a "possible" track listing. No problem recreating it later, but premature at this time. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 04:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of biotechnology companies2[edit]

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

Seems to be an indescriminate list. It would not be useful to trim this down to some form of managed list, because that would simply duplicate List of biotechnology companies. (The fact that this article has a "2" at the end already signifies it duplicates content in some manner.) Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the link to this page is not showing up in the AFD tag on the article page (redlink).76.102.12.35 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link works but sometimes it appears as a redlink for unknown reasons. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom, article has become unworkable as an indescriminate list. I don't see why some (make that a few)of these companies could not be added to the existing List of biotechnology companies if they are notable in their own right. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an indiscriminate list, because it does not explain why some companies are included and some are not. It claims "top 100", but 1) this is not verified (or even attempted) and 2) by which means: revenue, profit, # of innovative products, employees, market share, # of patents etc. The list also breaches naming conventions (the "2" in particular) and is redundant to List of biotechnology companies. Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the "Top 100" at the top is merely referring to the other article, List of biotechnology companies, and is not trying to claim this article itself is a list of the top 100. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone, I suggest an early WP:SNOW closure, as this will undoubtedly be the case. JBsupreme (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate list RadioFan (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a clear-cut case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consensus is that the claims within the article lack verifiability through reliable sources. —SpacemanSpiff 04:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Van Handyman[edit]

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

This article is likely created as a puff piece for Jerrod Sessler, whose own article is up for deletion as being nonnotable and a subject of paid editing. I can't find the significant coverage and discussion of this company in reliable, third-party sources required by WP:N and WP:CORP. I don't think that the Entrepreneur magazine and Franchise awards assert notability within themselves, as they aren't very prestigious in themselves. I recommend deletion since, although the article looks nice, the company itself isn't notable and the self-promotion and advertising at work here is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia. Them From Space 01:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is an article about an innovative franchising company in an industry that is not traditionally known for franchising. There are currently 40 Yellow Van franchises in two countries. It is the largest professional handyman company in the world. Is that not significant? The fact that it has been recognized by two national leading expert publications that specialize in rating businesses, franchises, and innovative business opportunities is by definition "significant coverage." The International Franchising Association repeatedly publishes this company as an example of successful franchising. They ARE the experts. The LA Times recognizes this business model as innovative franchising. Entrepreneurial business models like this one is what keeps the economy going when people lose their jobs, not just in America, but in Canada too! USchick (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which reliable source says it is the "largest largest professional handyman company in the world." 40 franchises does not seem all that large. Edison (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically remember reading it, but apparently I was reading it about their competitor Mr. Handyman, my bad! I was going to work on that article next, which really needs help, but I'm scared to do anything now until this is resolved. Why is that article not marked for deletion? I'm not saying that it needs to be, I'm simply asking. Has anyone looked at the article for the Atlanta Bread Company? No one is deleting that one either. Like I said on the other page, I don't have a dog in this fight, do whatever you want, but if you have a deletion policy, at least you should enforce it with some sort of uniform standards. I'm not sure where all this hostility is coming from, I didn't realize I wandered into a hornet's nest. Relax DGG! :-) USchick (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that most of the content of this article duplicates the one on Sessler, written by a different editor. At this edit What we certainly do not need is both of them. I'm not sure which is the more notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete examining the manner the duplicated content was added, as discussing in the AfD for Sissler, the sensible course now is to delete both of them. We do not compromise on spam. Possibly sometime in the future, somebody else may want to write an article on them. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has a very promotional tone consistent with its questionable history; it's a borderline WP:CSD#G11 speedy. I don't think we can trust it to be a neutral and encyclopedic article. And there are many footnotes but most of them look quite promotional in nature, and some that aren't (an LA Times story) don't mention the company even trivially. A Google news archive search for the name of the company finds nothing usable as a source so I'm not convinced this passes WP:ORG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has some references, but I see very brief mention in the LA Times, and longer pieces on blogs or websites which might not qualify as independent and reliable sources. Just not quite seeing that it satisfies WP:N unless someone can cut through the puffery and spam and point out the best claims to notability. (As an aside, it's not clear why a local handyman would want to pay a franchise fee to be a "Yellow Van Handyman" or how he could afford to sit back and hire others to be "handymen" working for him as the franchisee, when there appears to be no TV advertising and thus name recognition as there is for many other companies which fix garage doors, or rooter out clogged drains, or fix leaky basements, or kill bugs). A claim (verified where?) of 40 franchisees in the US and Canada does not seem that notable in itself. Edison (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources given do not strike me as particularly representing significant coverage, and the reliable of them is highly in doubt, especially ones of a "blog" type nature. Therefore, I am unconvinced that the subject passes WP:CORP. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerrod Sessler[edit]

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

This article is an autobiography created through this paid-editing request at elance dot com. At that website the client "jsessler" writes "I am looking for someone that has an account with Wikipedia and is familiar with the posting standards, requirements, etc. I want to create a profile page on wiki for myself where certain achievements can be explained. For example, I just wrote a book about beating cancer and I want to gain exposure for that story. "

This violates our policy that Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion. Also, looking over the article, it is filled with a lot of puffery but there is little substance which meets WP:N. Although the article bills him as a "professional NASCAR driver", there is hardly any direct coverage of him on Google News and most if not all mentions are trivial name-drops. I can't find any sources that have devoted a substantial analysis of him as the main subject of an article, nor can I see any reasons under WP:BIO to keep this. Them From Space 01:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I gave this article a long look—I think I reviewed it as a new article—but could not put my finger on what was wrong with it. It reads just like what one would expect from a paid-for-promotional biography serving as an advertisement. Supertouch (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, actually could arguably be deleted as G10 spam, given the evidence. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. I also suggest that the account that created it (a throwaway with no other contributions) be blocked. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally tagged this article for deletion, and if you look at the first revision, it's unambiguously promotional material. Still is. &dorno rocks. (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Offer of Compromise I disagree with the way he went about creating the article, as his intent was to gain publicity for his book. However, he is known for being an innovator in franchising and recognized by established authorities of franchising as an innovator in the industry. I propose deleting all mention of his book and leaving the rest of the page. He does seem to be a legitimate NASCAR driver, but that by itself does not make him significant. At the same time, Google hits do not reflect the value of someone's contribution in life or in business. The article is well sourced and documents his business acumen as it relates to franchising. Acting in Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I'm not convinced that he should be punished indefinitely for making a mistake. It does not make him any less notable. As far as the person who started the page, if it's a new user, see if they make any additional contributions in the near future. If not, then block the account. I encourage a little restraint in the harshness of your punishment. Please don't let the power go to your head :-) USchick (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not compromise on spam. I notice that a few minutes before the filing of this afd, at this edit this edit, which you marked minor, you copied the contents of this article into the one for Yellow Van Handyman, above. The only rational purpose for that I can think of , was that you were intending to propose the merging of the two articles--which might be a good idea. But now we see you here defending keeping this one--and, out of the various parts of it, keeping the duplicative material! And the manner that material is written is promotional, not encyclopedic. It is these sorts of articles that destroy the objectivity of an encyclopedia. One of the things I am not inclusive about is spam. Not having an article here is not a punishment. Having one is not a reward we give out . These are circumstances that I think would best be handled by deleting both articles. The person who needs a reprimand is not the subject, who might not haver known. It's the author, both for spamming Wikipedia, and for telling the subject that he was an expert and taking money for what was not a good piece of workmanship, and which will not accomplish its purpose. I would suggest a courtesy blank of this and the other afd, to spare the subject the embarrassment. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Believe it or not, I don't have a dog in this fight. You can delete both of them if your really think it's justified. At the time I was making the edits in question, as far as I can tell, neither one of the articles was tagged for deletion, so I was simply expanding the other article with information I thought was valuable. I'm not sure what you mean by "promotional" in tone. How do you write a business article without sounding promotional? I really don't want to get into an edit war here, so I will sit this one out, if you don't mind. I'll be happy to answer specific questions if they are addressed in good faith. If you'd like to follow my editing trail, you will see that I often focus on linking related articles, sometimes to pages in other languages. That's what I was doing here as well. I did not realize there was a controversy brewing, that's why I marked it as a minor edit. USchick (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I over-reacted. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete There is only one reference to his book in the entire article. No external links, no nothing. If that's too much, then excuse me. And believe me I've read it a million times and it does not look like advertisement. It is a biography and offers information. Sounds familliar? For you everything around here sound a little too commercial. Well, it isn't. And I suggest that the account of Andrew Lenahan, Starblind, be blocked because he is crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipul verde (talk • contribs) — Tipul verde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per the nominator's rationale. I wouldn't have commented as the outcome is already probably decided, but I want to make this point clear. As far as him being a NASCAR driver - he's a driver in a medium level touring series. That does not give him automatic notability except possibly if he was a season champion in the series. I am not aware of any articles from another driver in that series. Royal broil 05:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cagepotato[edit]

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

Non-notable website lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. Article lacks references that meet criteria to support notability. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Appears to have received little attention outside of its own site (point 1), while it may be highly trafficked but has no awards (point 2), and its content is not independently distributed "through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" (point 3). Fails WP:WEB criteria. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment I am still learning the criteria guidelines for wikipedia. The CagePotato entry was modeled after the Sherdog entry, and it not only has many of the same sources, but more. What is it that the Sherdog entry has that keeps it from not being deleted? • Dacreep —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Not a good argument for keeping. Also Sherdog is frequently mentioned on MMA TV shows as a source. --Nate^t/_c 10:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment Cagepotato has been mentioned on CBSSports, Fight! Magazine, G4’s Attack of the Show and more. Sherdog's entry does not seem to show these "MMA TV" sources, although I do know they are present. I can understand many entries are added to this site that do not need to be here, I do not feel that Cagepotato falls into this category. While the accomplishments might not be as "large" as Sherdog, it is also not an obscure site that is worth simply passing over. --Dacreep^t

Comment – Just being mentioned is not "non-trivial" coverage as required by WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok see this is where I am getting confused. You say just being "mentioned" is not good enough, yet the comment above mine states that Sherdog is allowed to have an entry because they are "frequently mentioned". Is that not the same thing? If Cagepotato was mentioned more frequently they would be allowed to have an entry? --Dacreep^t

Comment – Just being mentioned is not "non-trivial" coverage as required by WP:WEB. I have not looked at the article you mentioned, but there are articles that may not deserve to be on Wikipedia. The existence of those non-compliant articles is not justification for this article or any other article to be on Wikipedia. Each article must stand on its own merits. See WP:WAX for more information. ttonyb (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not saying because one article exists so should this one. What I am trying to understand is why one article, Sherdog specifically, can continue to exist and has since 2006 when it contains basically the same references as Cagepotato. I've been told in the above comments that Cagepotato is not notable enough, yet similar notoriety has allowed another article to escape deletion. I understand there should be a level of consistency when it comes to what stays and what doesn't on WP, I am just having a hard time seeing this consistency with these two articles.Dacreep^t

Comment – There are articles that remain on Wikipedia in spite of the fact they do not meet the necessary criteria. You are welcome to nominate them for deletion. ttonyb (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Provided references (particularly Ref 2,4 and 7) support notbility.--Rirunmot 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

Comment – I urge you to reread WP:WEB, WP:GHITS, and WP:RS. None of the references are about the company and the number of hits a website gets is not a factor in establishing notability. ttonyb (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In as much as an MMA website can ever be notable, this one appears at face value to be reasonably notable. The article is well-presented and well-referenced and the tone remains factual rather than promotional. I also note from past AfD debates that there appears to be at least a number of Wikipedians committed to keeping these fringe MMA articles maintained. Also I have left a message on the Martial arts project talk page notifying them of this discussion and asking for expert views. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Can you please explain how notability is established per the criteria in WP:WEB?

Reply - It doesn't have to; it fulfills the general notability guidelines (WP:N), being significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Their stories are commonly picked up and run by other news outlets; see here, here, and here, among others, in addition to numerous reviews of the site by sources as independent as you can get in the incestuous world of MMA web coverage, and multiple product references for their FightPicker app. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry to have to point this out, but per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. There is nothing in any of the articles that is even comes close to addressing the subject. ttonyb (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We may have to agree to disagree. I respect your position and the logic underlying it; I just think that these sources (and the other similar ones) DO constitute significant coverage, in that they are "more than a trivial mention" and "need not be the main topic of the source material". It's a borderline case, sure, but in borderline cases where the article is well-written, referenced, factual, and more or less encyclopedic, I'm inclined to err on the side of Keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ive never understood the OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. I believe that it is quite understandable to question why one article can stay while another cant. After all, Wikipedia is not censored. Portillo (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – And how does this meet the criteria in WP:WEB? ttonyb (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What I am still trying to understand, and why I mentioned the other article Sherdog in the first place, is how the criteria does not fit. I have been reading various articles on WP to understand this further. For someone trying to learn WP, and for someone like myself that hopes to add more articles and become an active member, it is quite confusing to see one article slated for deletion due to certain guidelines, while other almost identical article is safe. It's very confusing. Its hard to learn guidelines and rules when they seem to be fluid. --Dacreep^t —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment – And how does this meet the criteria for establishing notability? As I indicated you need to read WP:WAX. This AfD is not about other articles meeting or not meeting Wikipedia criteria. The bottom line is there are articles in Wikipedia that do not meet the criteria and anyone is welcome to nominate them for deletion. Each article needs to stand on its own merits and the argument that there are other articles in Wikipedia that do not meet the criteria is not a valid argument to keep this one. The sole purpose of this AfD is to assess if this article meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Something that no one has shown to be the case. ttonyb (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then why has no one in this discussion slated articles such as Sherdog for deletion? I'm not going to, I don't believe either should be deleted. I'm sorry, but it just seems a bit ridiculous that this article gets pinned down, and another one that shares the same criteria is still safe. I understand that each article must stand by its own merit, I get that, its not too hard to follow it's a propositional fallacy otherwise. What is hard to follow is the consistency of what passes and what doesn't. Its very similar to saying a patron to a restaurant cannot come in without shoes or shirt, yet another patron has been doing so since 2006. Yet all the attention has been put on this new patron. If I was the only one that believed this article worthy of being included on WP, I would have happily let it pass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacreep (talk • contribs) 06:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for refence when comparing to sherdog Alexia ranks are Cagepotato:12,335th, Sherdog 2,368th (not definitive but helpful) i.e. comparing to sherdog is not a good bench mark.

Comment – Again, read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability they both discuss this type of bias and are very explicit that, "Inclusion is not an indicator of validity." I have no idea why the other article has not been nominated for deletion and frankly it is irrelevant to this discussion. This is not the place to discuss inequities in Wikipedia policy. Anyone is welcome to do so on the appropriate Wikipedia guideline talk page. If your argument is sufficient and consensus can be reached, the policy will be changed. In the meantime, I ask the basic question that should be the only concern of this AfD, how does this article meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. I still see no indication by anyone of how this article meets the criteria for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have read that page, and will do so again. As stated in my previous comment I was not arguing that inclusion is an indicator of validity, I was arguing consistency. If rules are going to be laid down, they need to be applied universally. For this specific article the "content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" such as: Fight! Magazine , G4's Attack of the Show on G4 TV, Cage Radio (not affiliated with Cagepotato) and Yahoo! Sports to name a few. All of these are not affiliated with Cagepotato, are well known publications and sites, and feature content from Cagepotato not simple mentions or links. --Dacreep (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral has some sourcing but needs a clean up and phrases like " making it one of the most popular MMA sites on the web" leave a POV tang. --Nate ^t/_c 14:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saidu Medical College swat[edit]

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

School with only 50 students. No third-party references given or found. Not all schools are notable. Magioladitis (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not familiar with the schools notability thang. This is a small school which has only just been recognised by the national governing body. May have notability due to the lack of medical schools in that region. pablo_hablo. 01:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 01:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 01:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 01:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not worth fighting over the notability of accredited tertiary educational institutions. ^Bongo_matic 01:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Contrary to the nom's stipulation, the The News International is a third party reference and generally all accredited post-secondary education institutions are considered notable.--Oakshade (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first, the nom didnt read the article carefully; It's grown to 93. Nor, as Oakshade just pointed out, did he look at the references. It's in a major city, and has a 500-bed hospital. It's been around for 9 years now. Second, size doesn't matter-- Princeton was founded with 10 students; its first graduating class had only 6. Third, it has long been established here that all institutions of higher education, including medical schools, are considered notable. If one goes by the GNG, all of them do turn out to have sources, though, --especially in countries like India, they tend to be i print and difficult to find. The rule is potentially sourceable, and they all are; we have one already. We need to avoid [[WP:Cultural bias] And,as Bongomatic said, we have more important things to do than debate questions like this. I was sourcing some unsourced BLPs when this article was challenged. I'm going back to it.. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I added the reference an hour after the nomination so it is a tad unfair to castigate the nominator for not reading it. pablo_hablo. 12:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - accredited medical college - move along there! TerriersFan (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no sign it is a diploma mill (the only reason I've ever seen tertiary institutions get close to being deleted); in fact it seems to be a Pakistani gov't approved med school. Abductive (reasoning) 04:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - does not appear to be a diploma mill, and seems to be accredited by a legitimate body. Thus, it seems like the subject does pass notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note page needs moving to Saidu Medical College, Swat (or something) post AfD. Saidu Medical College is currently a redirect to what appears to be a separate establishment. pablo_hablo. 22:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Espera[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable enough to deserve an article. User234 (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. – Janggeom (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I especially love how there are sources pointing to ... angelfire JBsupreme (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SPORT doesn't seem well designed to cover martial arts professionals or sensais but he doesn't meet any of the criteria there, and he falls far short of the WP:ANYBIO criterion of "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. The related article Rapido Realismo Kali is questionable as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly sourceable from reliable sources, but currently isn't. Delete until better sources are found. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability WP:BIO also agree with Andrew that Rapido Realismo Kali is questionable. Polargeo (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Seven[edit]

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

Good faith nomination on behalf of IP user; nomination rationale copied from talk page:

I nominate this page for deletion as I cannot find any third party source or reference that mentions it. It seems like a peacock article that has no encyclopaedic value.123.211.253.49 (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nomination for deletion. I also cannot find any third party sources that refer to the "elite seven". I don't think this belongs on wiki - its just a conceit.Nuffynuffy (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:V. I can't find any evidence that this term is used, apart from a number of Wikipedia mirrors. Pburka (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete something like this would need some really rock-solid sourcing, and not only doesn't it have that, it doesn't have any sourcing whatsoever. So... it's gotta go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found one non-Wiki use of the term Elite Seven here: [33] (near the bottom), just to be helpful. Don't know if that makes it notable, but seems to exist as a phrase, maybe not as a body with a committee etc. Sussexonian (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As non-notable expression. But there should be an article on South African private schools. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as a machine translation, without prejudice against the creation of a new version in proper English. Skomorokh 01:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mykola Mazepa[edit]

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

Machine-translated autobiography. Most sources are citing Mykola Mazepa himself, dubious notability. DonaldDuck (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

500 persons of authority. Laureates. 1991 - 2002// Mazepa Mykola Mykolajovich. East Ukrainian biographical Institute, 2002. - P. 81., 500 persons of authority. Ukraine: 10 years of independence.//Mazepa Mikola Mikolajovich. East Ukrainian biographical Institute, 2001. - P. 196. 91.124.216.104 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images: Mykola Mazepa, Press-portraits: Mykola Mazepa-, articles: Mykola Mazepa, books:Colonel-General URC Nikolai Mazeppa - author of the Cossack era in Ukraine. 91.124.216.104 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't yet checked for notability (and don't have the inclination to do so today) but would agree with the nominator that this seems to be a machine translation of the Ukranian Wikipedia article, so we wouldn't be losing much by deleting this and waiting for a more comprehensible human translation. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleagues! It is machine translation of my article into English language. Request to finish off it in accordance with the English spelling. Thank you. Иван Московит (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, we do not need machine translated articles of non-notable subjects. JBsupreme (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. I don't know, but here are my comments. The main question here is notability, probably best evaluated using WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, but possibly on the basis of high police rank and various decorations. The issue of machine translation doesn’t matter. If the person is notable, then style issues can be resolved later. I don’t understand the significance of the International Personnel Academy in the context of a high-ranking police officer who ended up running one or more prisons. I searched on Google Scholar and didn't find him, but don't read Ukrainian. I don’t know how notable the decorations he received are. He had an audience with Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow which suggests some notability (not that the meeting itself conferred notability, but that the Russian Orthodox Church considered that his achievements were significant enough to be recognized by an audience with the Patriarch). The listings in various biographical directories don’t indicate notability, but reading them might lead to a better understanding of his accomplishments, since I find the current version of the article rather confusing. And I added “This article incorporates information from the equivalent article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia.” at the end of the article. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Shildt[edit]

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

This guy is really not all that significant. One of the two references is a self-made home video. The other is a rather obscure documentary. So basically this person is a bit player in an extremely minor film about Billy Mitchell and Steve Weide. His video game record score has never been verified either. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insignificant "fitness guru" using Wikipedia as a promotional platform it seems. JBsupreme (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nah, he's notable, he's just a bit player though, but he's mentioned as holding certain video game titles in video game high score books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.210.130 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britten (artist)[edit]

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

This was listed as a speedy deletion. However, there appear to be claims of notability, in particular with collaborations with other well known artists. This may or may not make the musician notable, it's hard to say, so taking it here for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to be notable under our music/artist guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. As an aside, if you've been calling yourself a musician for more than 5 years and only gotten around to recording one EP, it's probably about time to pack it in and admit it just ain't happening. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Releasing one EP on a non-notable label (it is apparently one of only two releases on that label) doesn't meet WP:BAND by a long shot. Possibly redirect to the indisputably notable Benjamin Britten. — Gwalla | Talk 03:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND and WP:N; lacks significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to List of schools in Kuala Lumpur. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Kebangsaan Seri Setia[edit]

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

Delete. I understand that we have a track record of keeping these types of articles, that is fine. But can this one be verified through reliable third party sources? JBsupreme (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/redirect to Kuala Lumpur#Education~~ per precedent. This is a primary school, so it should be merged to the nearest locality. The school's existence can be verified by the sources in the Google News Archive search. Two such sources are this article and this article from the New Straits Times. Cunard (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of schools in Kuala Lumpur, which is a better target. Cunard (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The primary argument (!) I see for keeping is that the school is more than a century old, which surely isn't typical of such institutions. I don't know how much notability that adds, nor do I see a source that talks specifically about the school's legacy, though my search was limited. In the absence of sources, a Merge per Gene93k is fine. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of schools in Kuala Lumpur per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ben & Jerry's flavors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Ben & Jerry's flavors

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

Unnotable list of flavors of Ben & Jerry's ice creams. Wikipedia is not a mirror for the Ben & Jerry's site, which already lists all of its current flavors in a more accurate, and useful fashion than anything we can do here. The only source for these flavors is in fact the site, making this nothing but a mirror, which goes against WP:NOT. It isn't a valid "split" from the main either as a well-crafted company article does not just include contextual list of all flavors of a product, but appropriate summarizes the company's products, highlighting those which reliable sources have themselves highlighted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sanity rarely ever prevails on Wikipedia when it comes to trivial and, well, to put it bluntly, stupid lists. JBsupreme (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a select few truly notable ones (i.e Cherry Garcia) into a paragraph or two in Ben & Jerry's. Believe it or not, there actually are books on Ben & Jerry's, so this may not be as unsourcable as it might look at first glance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with special note that nominator should not claim that benandjerrys.com is the only source when there are also references from the Boston Globe and MSNBC.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said only necessary one as the list does absolutely nothing but repeat their own website list of flavors and descriptions, and please point to sources that discuss the flavors as a whole with significant coverage, rather than the one or two articles on the handful of flavors named after "famous" people. That is all the few RS sources in the article have look at now; two of those flavors have their own articles already and the other of which is easily mergeable to the main article. Press release regurgitation are also not evidence of notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ben and Jerry's. I don't see much notability in each ice cream flavor, though some of the more notable ones have their own articles. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 03:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are the best information source for this sort of information in general, & can be trusted to preserve it--or we could be trusted, except for deletions like this. That some or all of it is presently on their site is no reason not to have an article--the same is true of many notable products. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this were an actual list of notable products we wouldn't be having this discussion. The brand may be notable, but the flavors, with very few exceptions, are not. Those which are can be described within the parent article. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for advertising and promotion and I'm not sure why you support this list. JBsupreme (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article presents a discriminate list of a notable topic (per third-party references). The nominator does not present any valid reason to delete the article, as 1) information being provided elsewhere is not a valid reason to delete it and 2) independent and reliable sources are being used 3) the length of the article is such that if the information is to be presented on the project, it is fair to keep it in its own article. If a full-length (FA-class) article was to be written about Ben & Jerry's, there would be no room, space-wise, for this list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#FAQ and put a mention of the more notable flavors in the main Ben & Jerry's article. To TheWeakWilled: I don't see any separate articles on notable flavors; the Cherry Garcia links right back to this list. Yoninah (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is mostly advertising. The descriptions ("Rich Buttery Ice Cream with Roasted Pecans"; "SMOOTH Vanilla Ice Cream Made with Fair Trade Certified Vanilla"; etc.) are pure sales promotion. Nominator is right that this is a list drawn from the Ben & Jerry's website. I'm sure that some of these flavors have been mentioned in the Boston Globe and on MSNBC (everybody remembers "Cherry Garcia"), but if the idea is to inform us about the currently available flavors at the Ben & Jerry's store, that's what the website does. When you mention a fun name for a new flavor, like "Goodbye Yellow Brickle Road", that's one thing. When you feel it necessary to describe chocolate ice cream as "SMOOTH Chocolate Ice Cream Made with Fair Trade Certified Cocoa", don't post that nonsense here. Mandsford (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just spot checked half a dozen of the flavor descriptions. They are WORD FOR WORD copies from the site. That seems like a WP:COPYVIO issue to me (and yes, they can and do copyright their descriptions of their products). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to what I have heard from time to time, WP is not the best place to store information. It is intended to be a collection of articles to inform people interested in learning about notable topics. Ben and Jerry's itself should maintain a list of current flavors at their own website. Historical flavors should be listed there and/or at a Ben and Jerry's fan site. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the most known flavors (like Cherry Garcia) into the Ben & Jerry's article. abelson (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, the flavors with actually stories behind them (as always, e.g., Cherry Garcia) can have blurbs in the main Ben & Jerry's article, the rest doesn't belong here. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors

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

Unnotable list of "discontinued" flavors of an ice cream brand; No significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lists have become a great way for Wikipedia editors (and "fans") to cram in as much non-notable trivia into a page that would otherwise be completely and totally unacceptable anywhere else on Wikipedia, and that's a damn shame. JBsupreme (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep product of a famous company, and we keep lists of discontinued products of other manufacturers. Someone might reasonably come here for this information--& it does not seem to all be on their website. We are the information source for subjects like this. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, can you please point to other examples of lists of discontinued products from other manufacturers? We ought not to be a primary source for this sort of information. JBsupreme (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please avid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments at AfD, they don't further your cause. An article is always weight on its own merits and in relation to policy. I have no problem seeing many large manufacturers getting (or perhaps they already have, I havn't checked) lists of their products, even those that are discontinued. I just checked a single company now, and it has its discontinued products listed at McDonald's products. Similarly, there is a list of "discontinued products" for an airline currently at FLC, see List of Braathens destinations. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you interpreted my comment to be an argument for or against other "crap" existing, you grossly misread my comment/question. I will reiterate that we ought not to be a primary source for this sort of content, and that if third party publications do not find this subject matter to be one that is notable then the discussion needs to end there. JBsupreme (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article presents a discriminate list of a notable topic (per third-party references). The nominator does not present any valid reason to delete the article. The flavors of Ben & Jerry's is frequently the discussion of main-stream media outlets, often at national level. Several flavors have their own articles, and if some are worthy of that, then creating a complete context is fine. The bottom line is that the article is a discriminate, verifiable and notable list. If someone merged with the List of Ben and Jerry's flavors, and the resulting list was not too long, that would also be fine. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the nominator did make a valid claim for deletion, in that he or she believes that this is not a notable topic. Further, the only source mentioned in the list's current version is not reliable; it's a self-published collection. I don't yet have an opinion on the notability of the topic, but these are factors I am considering. The topic is definitely interesting, but a bona-fide reliable source must be found to clearly show that it is notable. I haven't had any luck finding such a source yet, but I suspect that DGG's assertion of notability can be established with some digging - which is why I won't bother formally weighing in as yet.--otherl left 19:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I urge the closing administrator to strike the above !vote -- there are no third party referenceS (plural) in this list, and the only external link cited is a press release published by Grassroots Newswire. Give me a break. JBsupreme (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#FAQ and mention the more notable retired flavors (are there any if they're retired??) in the main Ben & Jerry's article. Yoninah (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The company stops producing some flavors every year, and some are apparently released only on a limited basis, so it's reasonable to presume that the retiring of at least some of these flavors has received coverage. I do not have the time to research this right now, but if this ends as deletion any admin may take this as a request to userfy this article into my userspace so I can check it out down the line.--otherl left 19:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I want to admire the stones in the "Flavor Graveyard" then I can click on the official website. Some-- yes some, nobody cares if they have stopped selling "chocolate almond" or "vanilla with Heath toffee crunch" -- some of these can usefully be mentioned in the Ben & Jerry's article. If the aim is to make a complete list of every flavor ever served at Ben & Jerry's, there are some people in Vermont who have already done it as part of their job. Mandsford (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford, they are not all of them in the source you mentioned. We do it better. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am having difficulty parsing DGG's comment here. Can you rephrase whatever you just said? JBsupreme (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a webhost for Ben & Jerry's, anything here is either going to be original research or copied from the Ben & Jerry's website. An externa link on Ben and Jerry's is all that is needed here RadioFan (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable list, only reliable sources appear to refer directly back to the Ben & Jerry's website. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]