< 6 February 8 February >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy keep, nomination was made by sock of banned user. Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Evanescence[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by Evanescence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as nom. Auwest182 (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close - bad faith nomination.--blue520 15:51, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Shportun[edit]

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

Amateur female bodybuilder. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:40, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Despite the large number of possible single-purpose participants, consensus is still largely towards keeping, under the rationale that ample signigicant coverage exists to satisfy the subject's notability. Further discussion of merging is welcomed on the article's talk page. Any apologies and regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Burke[edit]

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

Recommend for deletion as NON-NOTABLE I originally placed a Speedydelete tag when the article was first created, but noted in my edit summary after deleting the tag when the article was improved that I reserved the right to WP:AFD. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the dead, I must note that the number of Google hits are surely due to the recentness of the shocking tragedy of the unfortunate young mens' deaths. Many of the hits are from mirror/vampire sites. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support merging the salient data from Brendan Burke's page to his father's. But given the vandalism (see below) I suggest the page itself be deleted and SALTED, not redirected. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous IP vandal (User:216.26.223.50) removed the AFD notice. I restored it but let's keep an eye out. Perhaps someone could leave a warning notice to the offending party since my warnings have been deemed by other editors to be too harsh. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What is the logic there? if anything if it was kept and repeatedly vandalized, a basic protection would suffice.Luminum (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it (merge). New Orleans is ahead, unfortunately!! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 95.116.52.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wow, let's just make the life of a man well-known in the homosexual community disappear. This is so typical- we don't exist because you do not want us to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.62.48 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — 24.255.62.48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

— 68.127.171.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"This deletion has nothing to do with him being gay." Bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.171.234 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err on the side of cautious. Leave the page independent. It is/he is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.49.130 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE THIS PAGE AS IT IS!!! The young man deserves the respect of every human being for standing up for who he was and for having the courage to live openly and happily. This is a tragic event and he should be honored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.65.109 (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason for keeping an article under Wikipedia guidelines. You can say the same thing about thousands of people who have died tragically; that does not mean they meet notability requirements here. Pats1 T/C 16:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. he is certainly noteworthy as this has received coverage and his death was marked as such a tragedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.131.192 (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia's job or place to specifically create role models, on either side of any issue. Pats1 T C 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this comment was made by the IP editor, not myself. They just copied my argument, signature and all. Resolute 16:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This "deletion" issue is getting a great deal of coverage on gay blogs. With comments like "being gay or dying do not constitute notability" and flippant remarks about drinking/watching football while debating the deletion of a prominent young gay man's page, you aren't doing Wikipedia any favors. Basically it looks like a bunch of homophobic straight men are censoring Wikipedia because gay stuff makes you uncomfortable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.11.9 (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the Wikipedia guidelines you were referring to in support of your "keep" vote. The fact of the matter is, being gay or dying do not constitute notability per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. That's all I care about. I'm all for having an extended section on Brian Burke on his son, but the relevant guidelines do not support him having his own article. Pats1 T/C 17:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can tell that it is getting coverage somewhere given the number of unregistered users contributing. I would make mention that AfD debates are not a majority vote, nor are assumptions of bigotry a valid keep argument. (I would also mention that a person who assumes bigotry wherever he turns needs only to look in the mirror to find it). Notability is not inherited. Burke's notability in this case does not stem from being gay, but from being the son of a famous NHL general manager. If he was the son of a plumber in Columbus, his coming out would have been a local story, not much more. WP:BLP1E argues against standalone articles for people who've been involved in one event, which is why the merge suggestion is being offered - to put the important information in the proper article. WP:NOTMEMORIAL says that dying does not make one notable. These are all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Resolute 16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His notability has been established (see many references, above). The deletionists can't have it both ways - either we accept that he fulfills the criterion for notability (by any reasonable standard) or we admit that we are just deleting for the pleasure of being nasty. American conservative Christianity can't not be the basis for ignoring our policies.Panthera germanicus (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False dilemmas are not valid. Resolute 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You mean that a lot of people are alleging bias, a lot easier reason to parse than quoting how this article meets the requirements of relevant policies and guidelines. As far as your basic checks go, basic checks also demonstrate that Burke's been searched about a thousand times as often in the last week than for the previous year.  RGTraynor  18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say that the nonsense that is being peddled by those who oppose merge/redirect (I oppose redirect also, just merge in my opinion) that those who disagree with them are conservative Christian homophobes is sheer stupidity and vitriol. We should begin closing this WP:AFD out. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would please request that commenters please take note of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and Wikipedia:Civility. A vote for keep, delete, or merge should be viewed as simply that, without any subtext or agenda. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. I don't think it's too much to ask. We don't need some first-time IPs, or even established users, heckling those who vote for a merge or delete in this discussion with "bigot," "homophobe," or "Christian conservative," or some combination thereof. Personally I think that's incredibly hypocritical, but I'll leave it at that. Pats1 T/C 20:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point, Pats1. I am saying that those who are clamoring to keep the article are accusing those who disagree of all sorts of things, particularly homophobia. Just read the comments above. I finally took umbrage and pointed out the vitriolic nature of most of the anti-merge/anti-delete "editors". Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I misread your post as you specifically using those slurs yourself. Pats1 T/C 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He played Division I hockey, which is close to enough on its own. Add in the widespread press coverage and I lean towards keep.--TM 19:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't play hockey. He was the team's manager. Pats1 T/C 20:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a question, not to fall into a "because X exists, Y should exist", but drawing parallels to Burke and his father's legacy, is there reason why Frances Bean Cobain should exist instead of being shoehorned into Kurt Cobain or Courtney Love? it seems like a similar issue. She's a high-profile individual because of her parents' fame, but still gave a few interviews, though mostly about her parents and their fame. If there is rationale to keep her page, then clearly Burke's own high-profile status due to his sexual orientation in sports, his given interviews and media attention, as well as his "inherited" notability "trumps" her "inherited" notability. If that si the case, then it would make an argument against merger.Luminum (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not valid per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Pats1 T/C 20:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...Thanks? That was my point (see above). The question was if the Frances Bean Cobain page HAS rationale for notability, what is it predicated on and does that apply to Brendan Burke. the question wasn't "Why can France Bean Cobain exist, but Brendan Burke not?" The question was, "Does something legitimize Frances Bean Cobain from being merged, and does it also apply to Brendan Burke?" If there are real reasons for why that page legitimately exists, then given their similarities, it would be appropriate to compare them and see if this page matches them. If not, it would warrant merge or deletion, and if yes, it would warrant a keep.Luminum (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I think someone should nominate the Frances Bean Cobain article for deletion. I know how I will vote. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the article's been nominated for deletion four times and 3 out of the 4 ended up as Keep with one reaching no consensus. Within the AfD's, there are a spattering of arguments for delete and merge, but it's always been a keep.Luminum (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you came back from a 26 month absence from Wikipedia and this AfD was the very first thing you chose to edit. Boy, that is some coincidence, considering how many other single-note voters we've had here already... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Beeblebrox: Given the timing (most Americans that aren't huge geeks like myself are watching the Super Bowl right now) let's wait a day. Remember -- "Never put off until tomorrow...", well you know the rest. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know, even though theoretically that was the right move, I'm regretting it now that we have all these users that have obviously been canvassed to participate here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, you would have been left with a consensus formed from 3 or 4 people or a consensus of members of sufficient number albeit lacking in actual editing background.  ::shrug::Luminum (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out the following, and I hope everyone will pay attention: 1) The edit summary comment: "I re-entered info about Mark Reedy. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE, unless you want an ANGRY town coming back and editing it again" 2) The blatant canvassing averred to by, among others, Beeblebrox 3) The vandalism of my userpage, which led an admin to protect it 4) The vandalism of deleting the AFD notice from the Brendan Burke page after the WP:AFD was properly initiated For these reasons, while there are legitimate keep votes, I hold that the closing admin., whomsoever that is, must make sure that the (possibly fair-weather) editors who have perpetrated the above, understand fully that they cannot get away with this kind of behavior. Believe me, if they can get away with it once, they will continue. Again I understand there are legitimate keep voters there and I mean no insult to them. Thanks for listening. I have nothing more to add or say, and will await the result. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if the primary reason to "delete and salt" is to set an example, then I'd consider that a poor reason. Teaching rogue one-time editors a lesson by deleting an article that is the center of the controversy violates WP:POINT. The article should be kept, deleted, or merged on the basis of its notability only, no matter how inappropriate others have been about it or, and unfortunately, toward you. We're not dictators.Luminum (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Had to come back to respond: Luminum, if you read what I wrote I only said that the closing editor should ensure that the multiple violations that have gone on should not go unanswered. I already agreed to merge -- when it seemed the merge/redirect votes were going to carry the day, and suggested salting the page as a common-sense precaution to the inevitable vandalism that will occur once this AFD is over. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GnarlyLikeWhoa: Are you like the Generalissimo Franco, answerable only to God and history? We don't keep articles "because the future will thank us", particularly since none of us (including you) is clairvoyant,as far as I know. Were you referring to me as being affiliated with the British National Party? If so, you should know I am a leftist gay American Jewish atheist. You should be very careful in throwing accusations and allegations around. In my opinion you merit a block just for making that claim, regardless of whoever it was meant for. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC) (And no, that's not censorship by blocking).[reply]
Well, I sort of deserved that. On the one hand I Googled the prefix of your e-mail and found a profile for the BNP. That was my fault, I should have kept things in-house. However, on the other hand.... I'm wondering why you're mixing your shame on me with questioning whether I'm Franco and asserting that I, myself, deserve a block. Oh well.
In any case, yes, I "meant the future will thank us". The decisions we make now in editing and deleting will affect what future users see. It is important to set aside haste in order to see the bigger picture. Exaggerating by saying we're not clairvoyant is unhelpful to the conversation, in my opinion.
Anyway, I apologize for making the false accusation (Although who knows? I used to have this particular gay friend who he told me he voted Yes on Prop 8). GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I've seen with the AfDs on similar pages this article meets notability guidelines. The individual's notability is initially predicated on his father's, which is not sufficient, but the individual made media attention for a high-profile coming out which is his own claim to notability, contextualized by it being in a major sport for which his sexual orientation is not generally accepted (re: own notability). The entire thing resulted in relatively large sports-buzz and buzz in LGBT circles. That is one event. Second event is that his recent death became high profile based on his projected career and the buzz from the first event. On top of that, the article is well sourced by third-party reliable sources.
Again, not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF, but at what point are we drawing a definitive line in the sand for when individuals related to other famous individuals who preceded them have established their own notability? Should Mary Cheney be shoehorned into a section under Dick Cheney? The big buzzz is that she's the seemingly "ironic" daughter of one part of a staunchly anti-gay political administration and has remained so since. Should Maya Keyes be shoehorned into Alan Keyes like Margaret Salinger is a redirect to J.D. Salinger? That in itself is interesting.Luminum (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in theory- if he achieved prominence with his public coming-out, then I'd support keeping this article. So far, in this long, long, discussion, no one except me has offered any sources that confirm that- I'm the only person who has offered sources written before he died. As I've said, I'm perfectly happy to be wrong... but if he was so much in the news before his death, won't someone find the sources that demonstrate that? It's not hard to find news articles about Mary Cheney (who has not yet died, as far as I know). I don't know anything about Maya Keyes, but I'm guessing that premortem writing about her is also available. I've been insulted a lot in this conversation, and so I'm feeling kind of defensive, since as far as I can tell I'm the only person who even looked for sources.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In truth, there was a short burst about his coming out at the time (WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E), the majority of which was based out of Toronto, since his father is a high profile and outspoken GM in that city: Toronto Star, Toronto Star, TSN, etc. Of course, he is always referred to as "Brian Burke's son". That, imo, is his notability. Not that Brendan Burke came out, but that Brian Burke's son came out. His prominence was entirely the result of who his father was, not what he did. Which, in itself might be the sad part of his earlier story - that his own courage was trivialized somewhat because everyone wanted his dad's opinion. Resolute 00:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those individuals weren't listed as examples of dead offspring of famous people, just moderately notable offspring of notable individuals. In my personal opinion, there was a lot of buzz about Burke coming out when it happened, followed by an extended buzz of commentary on it and homophobia in sports, etc. etc. Of course, I can only say that there was a buzz because it happened to be big news in sports and LGBT stuff, of which I am frequently keyed in. Obviously there are people out there who have never heard of him. Anyway, the articles about him were pretty easy to find, and it seems like another editor has posted them below.Luminum (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the first sentence, which didn't actually specify what Burke's accomplishments are or what sources confirm them, and didn't appear to be familiar with the existence of the notability criteria? Or is there another 'first part' that said something relevant to this discussion that I'm not seeing? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the only first sentence in my vote. If that part isn't good enough I suggest you look through every AFD request ever and ensure that people write a clear and concise reason for the vote. Perhaps you should ensure a Grandfather clause, perhaps a literacy test, or a civics test. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has gotten way out of control. Attacking other editors' credibility, and demeaning their opinions based on userpage party affiliation is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I will hand out blocks if this continues. Pats1 T/C 23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your comment is based on me looking at user-pages then it is unfounded because I've looked at nobody's page. Why should I? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how you obtained the information his/her political party affiliation. Using in an attack of any way, including one on his/her credibility, is a violation of WP:NPA, specifically ad hominem attacks, and WP:CIVIL. That is an easily blockable offense. Pats1 T/C 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you automatically assume that, then you reveal only your own bigotry. Resolute 01:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's enough here for someone to infer it as a probable motivation, not an "automatic assumption." Unfounded assumptions are one thing, but being naive and ignoring indicators is another.Luminum (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you get right down to it, the keep argument relies almost entirely on emotion and a persecution complex. The merge (note: not delete) argument relies on policy: WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTINHERITED. Brendan's courage in coming out is certainly laudable, and something both he and his father took great pride in. Ultimately however, he was simply the son of a famous father. The press he gained both for coming out and for dying exists because his dad is a highly visible and outspoken general manager in hockey's biggest market. All the ad hominem attacks in the world cannot hope to challenge that assertion. Resolute 01:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probable motivation? Utter nonsense. The only "evidence" that could possibly contribute to such a conclusion is that this is a gay man who is of marginal notability. Unless there's some other evidence of bad-faith contributions here that I'm not seeing, everyone really needs to stop tossing around such accusations. Or is any AfD debate over a marginally-notable gay person going to result in cries of "homophobia!"? Powers T 01:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it was a response to tired bit of pseudo-wisdom that the user keeps throwing out there along the lines of "people who decry prejudice must actually be prejudiced themselves." I'm pointing out that the "homophobia" arguments are not coming out of nowhere. The original user's background and multiple blocks are causing other users to question the good faith of the AfD, and yes, WP:CIVIL or not, question his or her credibility and motivation. Simply pulling an AfD on an article does not constitute it as an affront to the article's content. Yes, that is a commonplace reaction and likely to happen when a blog spurs on its largely unaware and unaffiliated readers to rabblerouse on Wikipedia, and if it wasn't for the issue of the user, I would automatically dismiss it. In fact, based on this discussion page, homophobic or not, I question what the motivation is anymore, given that the user seemed to end their say on wanting to punish people and teach them a lesson rather than establish the lack of notability. A merge is a valid option, but at least in my perspective, the article fulfills notability. I guess it's only because we work with a fluid and purposefully undefined system with staunch views against setting precedent that the same AfD process can be applied to the same kinds of articles with the same issues and come out with separate outcomes.Luminum (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not being privy to what led to the blocks in the nominator's log, it certainly doesn't look as if they were related to issues of homosexuality. They were also, as noted above, four years ago, an eternity in web-time. Thus, I can see absolutely no reasonable basis on which to say "I can't help but think this move to delete is inspired by homophobia", and I, as someone who thinks a standalone article on this topic is unnecessary, strongly resent the implication contained in that statement. Powers T 03:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • People who decry prejudice without evidence most certainly do reveal their own prejudices. But, I suspect we can go in circles on that point forever. I've made my case using policy and while some on the keep side have cited policy themselves, most seem to think a rebuttal based on assumptions of bad faith, emotional arguments, WP:WAX, and WP:ILIKEIT is sufficient. The people making the latter arguments really need to take a look in the mirror themselves and consider their own credibility and motivations. Resolute 04:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon reflection, I've decided to strike my personal comments about the original user. I was caught up in a side arguemtn and some drama and I was wrong to pursue it. I don't have credible reason to believe that the intent was a violation of good faith. It's not constructive, especially when other on-topic points, that are not WP:WAX, WP:ILIKEIT, or predicated solely on emotion, exist and are valid reasons to keep the article. My apologies to Rms125a@hotmail.com.Luminum (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please - the nominator's past history is just that; ancient history now. He's been under mentorship for some time, though that's ended now and frankly, his conduct has been exemplary. I see absolutely no reason to bring this up here, other than its being a cheap attempt to discredit him. Please let's not do that - Alison ❤ 01:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but it is irrelevant here. Wikipedia is neutral. It does not partake in any sort of advocacy to any one side of any single issue. That's not what we're about. We're cold, heartless, and neutral. Wikipedia is not here to tell a story or promote someone's life or a specific cause. See Myanmar vs. Burma; some people wanted the article title changed to Burma as some sort of "protest" against the governement of that country. That was shot down and rightfully so. Of course, the article did get changed to Burma after all, but only on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME. Pats1 T/C 03:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Google News search for "Brendan Burke" returned over 1,000 news articles about him. The regular Google search returns 2.3 million web hits. Notability? Yes. Case closed--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and how many of those are related to his death? WP:ONEEVENT. Pats1 T/C 03:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are still these: The original piece, and following pieces during time 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, not to mention the numerous blog entries about the topic, which cannot be necessarily estanlished as notable sources. Even though link 4 and 5 are postmortem, their main point is not his death, but how his status as an out individual in the sports world affected gay athletes and brough about discussion of their place in the culture of hockey or sports in general. The original column from ESPN and links 1, 2, and 3, establish more than WP:ONEEVENT, given that the articles are either entirely focused on the "gay athlete/sports culture" impact and discussion, or divided between that and the fact that he was Brian Burke's son. I'm surprised that a bunch of people read these and determined that they only expressed his notability as Brian Burke's son. If anything that would be a superficial reading of the articles, which deal with the larger impact later in the article. Though the titles may appear to only indicate his notability as Brian Burke's son, the articles establish his notability away from his father and focused on his status as an out figure ins ports. Then you have the 1,000+ articles on his death. Would that be two events?Luminum (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject (Burke) became notable when ESPN published the November 2009 piece. That subject was picked up and discussed by numerous reputable sources and this has stimulated active discussion in other mainstream publications and numerous alternative or secondary sources. Reporting on his life and death has been broad. Hundreds of thousands paid silent tribute in NHL arenas. Canada's national TV network gave substantial coverage, not once but repeatedly (coming out, LGBT participation in high level sport, college and pro, participation by Brendan and his father in the Toronto Gay Pride event, death, funeral and discussion of possible changes in sport policies to eliminate sexual discrimination). As I read the WP notability document, there should be little argument.--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already stated. - Montréalais (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I indicated that I support a merge (but not a redirect); I also strongly oppose the idea that canvassed votes, which may have materially compromised this AFD, should play any role in deciding how to close out this AFD. Of course AFDs are not ballots with decisive majority votes required. I would have thought any established editor knew that. There are six mostly anonymous opinions, although there may be more as they are hard to count due to their incoherence, and one indicating "The page should stay" by User:ElentariAchaea (13:18, 8 February 2010), which offers no argument or counterargument, and is as meritless as simply one-word voting, i.e. Keep or Do Not Keep. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, had he not been Brian Burke's son he would not have gotten most of the news coverage which he got, both for his self-outing and his tragic death, in light of his unsensational sports career. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right but that doesn't matter when it comes to the policies of WP:N and WP:V. All that matters is that he did get news coverage that is solely about him and is from multiple sources. Therefore he became notable in his own right. His notability may have started because of his dad but in the end he can stand on his own. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is universal support for that particular interpretation. By the way, I wanted to ask when the info at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Brendan Burke is going to be incorporated into this main page. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's seperate because this page is locked to IP and new editors. As for interpretiation, its not an interpretation its a well established fact, notability/verified clearly state the requirments are that the subject must be covered in multiple reliable sources where the focus is the subject. Which is the case for this subject. WP:BLP1E is an exception to WP:N however, this particular individual has had two seperate news bursts which means he no longer qualifies for the WP:BLP1E exemption. -DJSasso (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was big news here in Canada when he came out and appeared on TSN with his father.Juve2000 (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the amount of sources and coverage on him before his death, I would contend that he was notable enough to have warranted a page before he died. Plenty of LGBT individuals, hockey individuals, and certainly a high number of Canadians, as has been attested here already, have been witness to his media coverage (coming out, famous father, presence in sports, opening dialogue on LGBT and sports culture, participating in Toronto Pride, tragic death). And I imagine those total more than the number of people who know famed physicist Dmitry Zubarev. Clearly, number of people does not perfectly equate to notability. Likewise, whether "we" have heard of him or not isn't a good measure of whether "people" have heard of him. Clearly a healthy number of Canadians, hockey enthusiasts and figures, and members of the LGBT community (described earlier as "vandals and voyeurs") have heard about him. Whether or not his sports career was "unimpressive" is a non-issue, considering that a notable actress or athlete can still be a mediocre actress or athlete.
Additionally, I'm finding that the "X would only be famous because of Y" is becoming a specious argument. Is Jenna Hager only notable because George W. Bush is notable if you really get down to it? Continuing to argue that Brendan Burke's notability is "only" from his father is false. Initial articles introduced him largely on the reputation of his father, but it is clear (if not by the article's content itself, then by later article titles during his life) that they focused more on his notability as an out sports figure and how that stimulates and impacts the discussion of gay athletes, hockey culture, and sports culture at large (all links posted above). Even some of the postmortem articles focus on him (titled "Brendan Burke" not "Brian Burke's son") and highlighting his notability (ex. "raised awareness by coming out as a young gay athlete" 4). Articles stopped referring to him as "Brian Burke's son" and then focused on him as Brendan Burke, and even in the articles that introduced him as such, the content wasn't only based on his status as the gay son of a famous hockey legend--it focused on what his presence means for out individuals in hockey culture and sports culture. Those articles throw out the argument that his notability is only divided between "being the child of someone notable" and "a shocking death." And ironically, given the coverage of the Wikipedia debate, perhaps it's now larger.
A merge would leave Brian Burke (ice hockey)'s page with a huge seemingly unnecessary section about what Brendan Burke's coming out did for the discussion of LGBT presence in hockey. It wouldn't be about what Brian Burke did for LGBT presence in hockey, it would be about Brendan Burke's contributions, considering that there's article coverage on his work speaking at functions about the topic 1 and articles using his status as an out figure to talk about LGBT presence in sports 5. Such a section would need to be included if a merge happened, but would result in a section concerning someone else's accomplishments on Brian Burke's page, which is problematic. That leaves us with deleting or keeping the page. I don't see any reason for the subject to be relentlessly and rigidly held to WP:N with the goal of deletion, when WP:IGNORE exists and WP:N itself suggests that deletion is a "last resort" and (as suggested above) when a notability tag at the top of the page would suffice (despite the fact that sufficient media coverage pre- and post-death exists), especially when references are solid and formatting can be gradually improved if it's less than ideal now.Luminum (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: A "huge" section? Nonsense. Like a number of others, you are badly overestimating Brendan Burke's deeds. He was a high school hockey player (which is not in of itself notable), did some broadcasting (which is not in of itself notable), was the son of a more famous man (which is not in of itself notable). Coming out is pretty much all that can be considered noteworthy, and a section on him could be handled in two paragraphs. In an article that's thirteen paragraphs long, that doesn't overwhelm the existing text.
That being said, something I've been thinking about: if people are so fired up about Brendan Burke, so much so that there's a massive canvassing campaign to save the article, could someone explain to me why the same people who are so eager to claim he's all that notable never bothered to write a Wikipedia article on him before four days ago? The media articles about him coming out were months ago now.  RGTraynor  23:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Sorry, "huge" was the wrong word here. Significant is what I meant. If you merge, you're going to have at least two of three paragraphs that address Burke's coming out, his advocacy, and his role in the LGBT-sports dynamic without saying much of anything that has to do with Brian Burke, except for the fact that Burke accepted his son. That doesnt seem bad in theory, but in terms of quality for Brian Burke (ice hockey), that would raise a flag for me to ask "Why is this here? This has almost nothing to do with him." As for the last point, the burden of real-world notability doesn't revolve around whether Wikipedia has a page or about it or not. That posits that Wikipedia editors are a representative sample of the regular world population and therefore would be abreast of every appropriate topic that should have a page, which I'll hazard a guess at saying that it's not. That would explain why nearly every character from Street Fighter has their own page and why Holden Caufield, for all of his signficiance in English literary study and reference, is at best a stub. Burden of proof of notability rests on adeuqate sources and coverage, which have been posted here and on the page. I also seem to note that you haven't responded at all to the fact that the content of the articles grant him notability beyond the string of factors you listed. His position as a highly visible figure within the hockey world who came out as gay is the topic that is discussed as the focus of some of the listed references. Some of the sources discuss his role as an advocate as their main focal point. It isn't that "he came out," it's the context within which he came out. If a gay couple discloses their relationship in the US, most likely it's not notable. But if a gay couple in Malawi disclosed their relationship, it's notable (as the case is now) because the context is that they're highly visible in a stigmatized social sphere where they'll be prosecuted, where being gay is illegal, and it's causing an international human rights issue. Following your logic, that wouldn't be significant or notable because "they're just a gay couple coming out." That's the same issue here: Brendan Burke isn't notable for "coming out," he's notable for 1) coming out in the sports world, 2) causing a significant discussion of the issue of gay athletes and homophobia in sports, and 3) being an advocate within that realm. If his relationship to his father and his death aren't notable, that's fine, but that still leaves the other three issues, which are notable enough to have resulted in mutiple articles from different sources.Luminum (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: You mean I haven't responded to your opinion that the content of the articles grant him notability, which following WP:BLP1E they would not have done.  RGTraynor  17:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:Well, according to specifics of WP:BLP1E, it doesn't fit the general description of WP:WI1E, which points out a one-event as generally having a definitive beginning and end, such as a high-profile marriage. Sources clearly demonstrate that he engendered an ongoing discussion about the place of out athletes and professionals in sports, and hockey most especially, as multiple sources stated. Additionally, according to WP:WIALPI, he fits high profile for media attention, having given interviews to TSN, The Star, and ESPN. He fits high profile for eminence, as he's been stated by sources to be the sole example of an out hockey athlete or professional and he gained far-reaching interest and coverage beyond local news, reaching throughout Canada and the US and within several realms of larger sports news, hockey news, and LGBT news. He fits low-profile for promotional activities and appearances and performances, none of which really apply to his situation. In my reading of those guidelines, based on the content of the significant media coverage about him and the discussion it caused and continues to create about a social issue, and not his father, that would move him out of WP:BLP1E. If I can site example and sources, which I have, it doesn't become my "opinion," it becomes my "argument," which you have not made an attempt to refute. If you can, I welcome it as it will ensure that all issues are covered. I'm merely drawing attention to that issue (since the casual use of the word "fact" seems to hit a literality button).Luminum (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What he did WHILE ALIVE is groundbreaking, not only to be out in a major-college-hockey (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they won the national championship) environment, but to discuss this on national (in two countries) news outlets (no pun intended), is completely unprecedented and quite notable. If he doesn't deserve a page, I guess Matthew Shepard doesn't deserve a page, because he was a complete unknown before he died. There aren't a huge number of gay kids in Wyoming, but still, there was very little at all notable about him.Theknightswhosay (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He never actually played for the hockey team. Its a misconception that he actually played hockey. He was only the manager. -DJSasso (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a misconception that he played professional hockey, though he was a hockey player before deciding to quit out out of fear over his sexual orientation and switch to team managing. Hopefully that gets cleared up here. Still, sources point to him as the only out athlete OR professional affiliated with the hockey program, and cite him as being the pioneer in that realm for the sport.Luminum (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, count the number of single-purpose accounts putting in their two cents here. Those sockpuppets should be disregarded. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, count the number of wikipedians that kept saying that Brendan wasn't notable, and also quoting WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, even after several people, including undersigned, showed evidence of his notability with links and discussions by the mean stream media since November 2009.Thorin (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what's a REALLY GOOD WAY to make whatever POINT it is you are trying to make is to USE LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS to make it clear that you are RIGHT and anyone that disagrees with your CAPITAL LETTERS must be WRONG. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, maybe he or she is using capitals to provide emphasis in lieu of knowing how or stylistically choosing to use bolding or italics. Would that have been less irritating?Luminum (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've always preferred random links to other articles for no apparent reason. But hey, that's just me. Patken4 (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheeses Christ, Beeblerox, do you need to be negative? Lou2u felt the need to use capital letters because Lou2u felt the need to us capital letters. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is that actual grounds for a accelerated decision one way or the other? I never heard of that. :|Luminum (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Because there are people that have made arguements for both sides policy states it needs to run 7 days. Only if it was unanimous would WP:SNOW apply. -DJSasso (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the worst example of bad tempered nonsense by experienced Wikipedians that I have ever seen. I'm out of here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFD discussions are generally kept open for a week. There are some limited circumstances where the debate can be closed early, but they generally require either absolute unanimity or demonstrated proof that the nomination is explicitly contrary to Wikipedia policy in some way. While I do support keeping this article, it doesn't meet those criteria — so as an administrator I wouldn't have been willing to pre-emptively close this discussion early even if I hadn't already !voted. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I merely wonder if we've beaten out a consensus or do some editors still argue for deletion or merging with another article?--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe that it remains open because even if a consensus was met now, other editors have the opportunity to contribute for either side, since it isn't a compelte consensus until there was sufficient time for individuals to debae it (i.e. the 7 days). The AfD still has the opportunity to reach people beyond those who have already given input here, including those who might bring additional valid arguments in favor of a merge or deletion.Luminum (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: The only peacock term I can figure you're referencing is the "pioneer" comment, which was a verbatim term from two sports news sources. Within the direct quote, the context is given: "in a sport that has never had an out athlete." The page content comes from the sources themselves, but in case they are genuinely being twisted by POV, can you explain? Also, what are the specific peacock terms you feel are on the page?Luminum (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The whole article and controversy surrounding it carries a heavy dose of recentism. Page should be deleted now and opened for recreation in a few months, if anyone still cares. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. So the fact that his death was recent invalidates the content of the articles written preceding his death? Is his role as the first out professional in hockey going disappear with time and interest?
Actually, looking at the arguments highlighted as examples of recentism and movements for deletion, the argument appears that notability doesn't disappear. And actually, whether this article is rewritten in three months or three years won't change the content and implications of the sources used about Brendan Burke (per WP:Recentism, see Jennifer Wilbanks and the article's deletion debate).
It also won't magically "unmake" him from being the first out hockey professional during a time in which there never was (and as of now, still isn't) an out figure in hockey, in tandem with the notable issue of homophobia in sports. Maybe the "time fades all things" argument would work if Brendan Burke was a basketball player or professional coming out after John Amaechi, or rugby and Gareth Thomas, but he isn't—he's the first professional in hockey, and that position isn't going to be undone by time. If the examples from WP:Recentism show anything, it's that articles that are predicted to have "flash in the pan" notability wind up standing the test of time, particularly the example with Jennifer Wilbanks. If the argument here is "will anyone remember this in ___ years?" it's unanswerable. Technically every article will fall under candidacy for deletion if notability is subject only to collective memory (and of whom? Wikipedians?) Will anyone remember Mary Kay Latourneau, Paris Hilton, or Gabourey Sidibe in 60 years? Does that mean that to find out, we should delete their pages and wait a while to see if a Wikipedian, of all people, finds that he or she "still cares?" That's one hell of a litmus test of notability, right there.[[Luminum (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: This argument has already been refuted above. In short: the headline may say "son of", the articles themselves are in fact high-lighting Brendan's influence on hockey culture, not his father's. Furthermore, not every headline had a mention to Brian Burke, so the first part of your second sentence is simply not true.Thorin (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Williamgeorgefraser, did you actually READ the article? You ask a lot of questions that were answered in the article. Also, on the preceding page you have made allegations that the only reason Brendan came out was in an attempt to become famous. You also imply that the purpose of this article is to "promote homosexuality". Lou2u (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since his coming out how many other gay players have come out? Surely if his coming out is such an important matter in the Hockey world we should have names.If there are no others then that means either he was the only one (unlikely) or the others rightly reckon that because of his background he does not represent them. How can he then be a symbol for gay players? If in the future one or several players come out then he has his place here but for now he is only talking for himself.Williamgeorgefraser 21:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs)
I do not entirely follow your reasoning. But as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a blog or political magazine, we must look at other work and create from those pieces an encyclopedia article. So the coverage in the 'real world' shows someones notability, not our own thoughts about the matter. Please look at Wikipedia:ORIGINAL and Wikipedia:NPOV.Thorin (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thorin, the whole reason we are having this discussion is because Wiki is based on people's thoughts about the matter. If this guy is important in other players lives it is because he has shown them the way to tell the world about their homosexuality. How many other players have told us they are gay? If the answer is 0 then he's a bit of a dud squib. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is really a straw man. Trailblazers, especially relating to social issues, are seldom publically followed immediately by others in similar situations no matter what those situations may be. Brendan Burke's public coming out only happened about two months ago. What is notable is that he vastly increased the public awareness of a significant social issue. As with "same sex marriage" and "gays in the military", somebody has to be first to begin the long process. That is notable in and of itself, and that notability is more likely to grow with time, not diminish. Susan B. Anthony was not that notable when she began her fight for women's rights in the middle of the 19th Century, but her work helped lead to the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment seven decades later in 1919, and with her face on a US Dollar coin in 1979. Can we really say that Brendan Burke's notability already is insufficient to at least deserve a few kilobytes of html hosted on the Wikipedia server? Centpacrr (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

matt91486 (talk) 06:52, 14 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of East Asian and Southeast Asian countries by population[edit]

List of East Asian and Southeast Asian countries by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a pointless article. It is just a table with a list of countries from two regions, there are other pages out there that contain the same data Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: legitimate reference doesn't mean that the reference is good or reliable. The combination in my opinion is awkward and I don't even get the reason for the combination as Southeast Asia is culturally and economically tied and influenced to both South and East Asia. So why isn't South Asia in there then? South Asians are also referred to as "Asian" in some countries like the US and the UK. In terms of what the Orient is, I commonly hear people say China or Japan (East Asia) and not countries like Indonesia and Malaysia (Southeast Asia). Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 16:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Mandsford's comments here are at best POV, at worst shows a reckless bias and complete lack of geographic understanding. Comments like 'Asia includes places like Israel and Saudi Arabia, that most people don't tend to think of as being "Asian"' must never become the basis for article creation on Wikipedia. From his/her point of view, he/she does not think that half of Asia is part of Asia, so wants to "redefine" a new, arbitrary region (cherrypicking) for what substitutes their view on the world. This is a dangerous line of though, and something that must be avoided at all costs on this project. Arsenikk (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I appreciate the kind words, my friend. Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arsenikk's statement is 100% accurate. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:50, 10 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dash (personal internet viewer)[edit]

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

Reads like press release or ad. iBentalk/contribs 22:21, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Light Years Ahead[edit]

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

Almost no content, no refs, iBentalk/contribs 22:14, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By-Sexual[edit]

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

Non-notable band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:15, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C.H.O.M.P.S[edit]

C.H.O.M.P.S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N Prod removed by creator with statement that "it is notable" without providing any actual proof. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One does not prove non-notability, one proves it is notable. Has no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENTThat's just like, your opinion man. There's this thing called "Due Diligence" that we editors should perform prior to passing notability judgements. Here's a few sources to get you on your way [19],[20],[21],[22],[23], Here's the movie poster[24],Some more quotes [25], not a particularly WP:RS but still a list putting C.H.O.M.P.S. in top 8 movie robots [26] and so on. All found in 5 minutes. Nefariousski (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google results are not signs of notability, and most of what you just linked to are NOT reliable sources. Being on IMDB is not evidence of notability, nor its being for sale. Existence is not notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide proof that AnmaFinotera did no research. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google results mean nothing and do not confer any notability. Significant coverage must be in actual RELIABLE sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alan - talk 21:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest? you read This? Nefariousski (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPNic (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering that every one of the Afd debates that the nominator created yesterday so far have been prime examples of WP:SNOW I would disagree that there was no motive involved. When a string of related articles all created by one editor are put up for deletion by the another editor and overwhelming consensus says "obvious keep" then (assuming the nominator understands the afd process and common policies and criteria for deletion) it's not beyond the pale to think that they were bad faith noms. Nefariousski (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Response) but there is not always overwhelming consensus. Just read this page and you will see that there are opinions both ways. Read more closely and you will see that many of the "obvious keep" arguments have no basis in WP policy. It might not be well-understood, but the policy consensus as it stands actually makes notability rather hard to achieve and keep arguments should be able to demonstrate that the policy is met. "Overwhelming keep" arguments, in turn, should be able to demonstrate that there is lots of support in policy. But what we have here is a big struggle to find just one or two marginal instances of evidence. Hardly overwhelming - not if we stick to the policy, anyway... Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Film by notable director. Lugnuts (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Response): The notability of the director does not, of itself, transfer to the film. Notability is not inherited (see WP:INHERITED. Your comment actually supports mention of the film in the article of the director - which is probably not what you are trying to say, I suspect! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many sales sites and the film (like almost every other fil ever produced) is on sites like IMDb and Amazon, but for the film to be notable under WP:NF it must be widely distributed and have "received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." I can't find a single full-length review - either online or in print archives, so this film fails under that part of the WP:NF criteria. It could still be notable if it it is historically significant, has won a major filmmaking award or is taught in at a tertiary educational institution that has a notable film program. If the article is to be kept, I think there is an onus on those arguing for its retention to find evidence against the consensus policy! Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of the monination, a number of reviews have been located and included as references in the article. I think there are now sufficient sources that meet the requirements of WP:NF to withdraw my support for deletion and cross over to the keep camp! Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-->
(Response): Not so stupid. The article didn't have any citations which demonstrated notability. Thanks to your research, we now have two, but we need to determine whether they are enough to support the notable film requirements. To do so, they must be full length and by nationally known critics. As pointed out below, one of the reviews is probably just a few paragraphs (I am guessing that from the word count) and I am not sure how long the other one is. Also - who is "Berg", the Variety reviewer. Is he/she nationally-known? As you can see, it' not always that easy to establish notability in accordance with the policy guidelines, but if we do so, we maintain the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. And as such, I don't think the nomination is stupid at all. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Stupid and disruptive. This article was nominated for deletion within three minutes of its creation. Minimal research on my part brought up reviews in two nationally-known venues, and two more articles to which I don't have immediate access. There are bound to be more. This song and dance about the article being poorly formed to start with, and now-- unbelievably-- word-counts of those national reviews, implies that some Wikipedia editors think they are better judges of what films should and should not be covered than do national critics. Besides being against the entire spirit behind Wikipedia editing, this violates NOR and NPOV, just to start with. No Wikipedia editor-- no matter how high his/her opinion of him/herself-- is a better judge of what films should be covered than are Variety, the L.A. Times, and The Hollywood Reporter (just for starters). Dekkappai (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Response): Not sure what NOR and NPOV have to do with this nomination. The fact is that there is a policy that defines notability - it's not the nominator or anyone else who determines that - it's a consensus within Wikipedia. It's interesting that most of the keep argument here are not supported in policy at all. And the word count is relevant when the criteria for notability specifically mentions *full length" article. I think there is an assumption that just because a film is mainstream and has a mention in an online movie database that it is automatically notable. But it's pretty obvious that the policy is more stringent than that. So the fact that we have only two reviews - one of them not exactly "full length", means that we may not actually have notability as defined by Wikipedia's own consensus policy. That's where we are today after more than a week of debate - and yet you think it's a stupid nomination? If it was, I think it would be much harder to argue for deletion. But by simply quoting the exact words in the policy, we are able to cast doubt on the film's notability - whether it's popular to do so or not. I, personally, have no vested interest in this at all - other than trying, in my small way, make sure that these debates are focussed on WP policy and not other factors. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't more than a week into this debate. The article was listed for AfD on February 4, and mistakenly relisted on February 7, which made it look like a week had gone by. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep WP:IDONTLIKEIT has never been a valid reason for removal before, surprisingly, this hasn't changed. HalfShadow 21:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Response): very true, but do you have a reason for it to be kept? Not liking the deletion nomination isn't a very strong argument to keep it either! Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:N by significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, in the form of film reviews listed by Dekkappai and others above. The LA Times had what was, per the abstract, a 368 word review in 1979 by Linda Gross. This also satisfies the first provision of WP:NF by having been "widely distributed" and having received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." It does not have to satisfy ALL the provisions of NF, just any one of them. Edison (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Response): There are several WP:NF criteria and, you are right, the film just has to meet one of them. Being "widely distrubuted" and "received full length reviews..." are part of the same criteria, so a notable film must meet both, the way the criteria reads. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Specific Response): The criteria calls for a "full length review". I am not sure if a 368 word article can be considered a full-length review? By my calculation, that would be no more than two average length paragraphs... Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Forgot to mention here that the screenplay was adapted into a 121-page juvenile novel by Scholastic.[28] Of course, I suppose, we as anonymous Wiki-editors are probably better judges than the professionals over whether that means the film is actually worth writing about... And maybe they used a large font, cutting down on the word-count... Dekkappai (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: With all respect, Dekkappai, I think you may have missed the point. We all (you included), as Wikipedia editors, can and will decide whether it's worth writing about in Wikipedia. We've developed policy - by consensus - that defines exactly what we will include and what isn't to be included. That's why we debate these things in the context of policy and not on an emotional or personal level. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. If a film is reviewed in national media, written about by notable media, for us to step in and say, "No, this film should not be covered." puts our own judgment above that of the experts in the field. (To quote: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.") Are you seriously saying this film is not "notable", in spite of the fact that it's been written about in multiple notable media, and that nearly every person and organization involved in it is also "notable"? No point in answering, our discussion here has run its course. Dekkappai (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Respone: I'll answer just for the sake of the record and the debate as a whole. Notability is not what you or I think it should be. it is what Wikipedia policy says it is. If we don't like the policy, we can seek consensus to change it. But until then, we have to argue to keep or to delete in accordance with the policy. I don't care if this film stays or goes, but I do care that the decision is made properly, because that affects the way Wikipedia operates. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I remember the film and while it was horrid...not even so bad as to get Z-movie status but more like...Why...just why? This in itself does not make it notable, however saying that a critic was not nationally known...well there are nationally known critics today (Richard Roeper comes to mind) who were still in school in 1979. Hard to judge a critics notability in what is basically web prehistory.UnseemlyWeasel (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The critics cited in the article wrote for Variety and the Los Angeles Times. Those publications judged them worth hiring/printing. When Wikipedia starts second-guessing the experts, reliable sourcing has been substituted by the personal opinion of Wikipedia editors. Dekkappai (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google News Archive search indicates that the movie received more reviews than just Variety and the Los Angeles Times. There were also reviews in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Newhouse News Service, just to identify two that are freely available online. (And keep in mind that relatively few newspapers have full text of articles from 1979 available online.) A national release and multiple notable people in the cast and crew should be sufficient to establish this film's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Variety & LA Times were just what I could find on short-notice. I remember when it came out-- it was a national release. There was coverage all over the place. TV, radio, newspapers... AfDs like this just play on the difficulty of finding sourcing (which exists) on older, or foreign, or non-mainstream releases... Dekkappai (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! There's now enough evidence and sources for me to now support the article's inclusion, as per above. If nothing else, the nomination has ensured that the hard-to-find sources are being included, which is as it should be! Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the expansion. It seems to have cvoerage in reliable publicaitons which is what I count on for notability. Articles in the Los Angeles Times, Variety, various book sources etc make this easily within our guidelines I think. One fair use poster has to go though. We don't accept two. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 21:09, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artix Entertainment[edit]

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

Deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artix Entertainment (2nd nomination) as unsourced, this re-created version has also been flagged as lacking sources for over a year. There appears to be a WikiProject for this company, despite its producing only a few games, but that WikiProject has not resulted in any improvement in sourcing. If anything, the last year has only seen the article bloated with even more unsourced text. It's clear that there are fans on Wikipedia, but that does not seem to translate into reliable independent sources. The only Google News hit was a press release of the company's first anniversary party, and in the first several pages of Google hits I did not find any reliable independent sources which are actually about the company rather than its games. It verifiably exists, but so does my guinea pig. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see why this wasn't just re-listed properly during the 3rd nomination. Far too much emphasis is being put on "process" and not enough on net impact to the project as of late. JBsupreme (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't relist it since it was two months stale, and there appeared to have been some changes to the article in the interim. The article sat at CAT:AFD for that two months before anyone noticed, as well - so the possibility existed that the nominator might just leave it be. I thought it best to give Guy the option. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a fair explanation, thank you for clarifying. JBsupreme (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Just because the company created a few company that doesn't mean its notably, who the hell are you the one to be bias and state of your povs to be significant on behalf of wikipedia. Who says that if a company created less than 10 game thereof it isn't a significant company. I see Blizzard only made 10 games for the past decade.
Anyhow, according to Google Search it is more than notable as seen in IGN, WarCry Network, Massively, these are all top 100 gaming review company. Moreover, whether are they are fans or not FYI the biased User:JzG. That is none of your business, the fact is they didn't fancruft as far as i can tell in all of 2009 contribution. If you think WikiProject Gaming are fans, than I say all of WikiProject are fanbase community, just because their are focus is on science or knowledge that doesn't equate mean their passion doesn't equate with fans. --173.183.102.184 (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those first two links appear to be press releases. When gaming sites are sent press releases they post them. They can't be used as an indicator of the subject's notability. Reach Out to the Truth 15:53, 25 January 2010
You are totally synthesizing things. Many gaming sites itself have a public database for gaming developers e.g. MMOSite Company (Info: Hanbitsoft), so it would be a surprise if they have the information. Most company these do have contracts for media statistics. e.g. Forrestor, Gartner, iSuppli...etc. Unless you can prove otherwise, the IGN & WarCry reviews remains valid. FYI, Artix Entertainment never release a press release. The ones who did are related partnership with IGN ads & SocialWise Inc show in here and just about every search results in that source has a page covering company info. Also some even covered their products at CES 2007 which is beyond enough notability for the article to be kept. --173.183.102.184 (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The review would be valid if it was a review, but it's not. Ignore the fact that the Review tab is highlighted, because that's clearly not a review. But I did find a real review from IGN after a few seconds of searching. Note however that a review for a game does not automatically make its publisher notable.
And just because you can't find press releases on the publisher's web site using an external search engine doesn't mean the publisher doesn't issue press releases. Check out this IGN article about another game from the same publisher. See anything unusual about the first paragraph? It explicitly refers to the fact that it's a press release. Even if it didn't, it's very easy to tell if something is a press release written by some PR guy or if it was really written by IGN staff. Reach Out to the Truth 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient sources to show notability. Unless there is some reason to doubt the facts, even press-released based material is good enoguh forthe basic facts of a company's existence, and its products. Aa=s it has produced many notable products, it is notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per DGG. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure if it is pertinent or not, but The (DC) Washington Times has an article on AdventureQuest. It is the Jan 07, 2007 edition on page D2. It goes into the game in a decent amount of detail, but only mentions the company as having made the game.--Rockfang (talk) 10:08, 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, Scott Mac (Doc) 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I closed this debate as delete on the basis that despite assertions by the keep voters, no independent sources have been found, and without third party sources we have neither independent verification nor evidence of notability. However, since DGG has contested my close, I've reoppened and relisted so this contention can be examined by others, or independent sources can be found.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Looking at their profile on gamespot, most of their games don't have reviews on the high profile sites. Ironically, their only game which has a long review, WarpForce, got deleted from Wikipedia, while their seemingly less notable products are still around, complemented by fanboyish articles on the characters in these games. Routine news announcements, like what titles they released don't impress me much. But I did find reviews of some of their other products, even though they were missing from the product wikipages [29], [30] (click "full review") [31] (ibid.) [32] [33]. I've AfD some of their video games. It would be easier to decide if the company is notable or not after we decide if their products are or are not so. Generally, a company that produced multiple notable products is considered notable, see Delta Tao Software (and its AfD). Pcap ping 05:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For reference, the notability guideline for companies is WP:CORP (I don't think it has been mentioned yet). Marasmusine (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability is not inherited from the products; in any event mmorpg.com, about.com and mmohut.com are not considered reliable sources, which leaves us with the "light" IGN review for one game. Press releases do not count towards notability. I've not finished a full search yet; my !vote is based on the evidence presented at the time of writing, and WP:CORP. Marasmusine (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • About.com is generally accepted as a reliable source. As for the other two gaming sources, why are they not reliable? The mmorpg.com review author is a staff writer. The mmohut.com author is one of the two site admins/owners [34]. This is not user contributed content. Pcap ping 15:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For sites dedicated to a specific type of gaming, they have good/decent Alexa traffic rankings: mmorpg.com (rank world/US: 5,124/2,554) mmohut (27,529/13,414). So they're not someone's obscure personal site. In comparison, the generalist IGN has 222/101. Pcap ping 16:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mmohut went through a period of hijacking external links on wikipedia pages, is basically a self-published site ran by two brothers, and was struck off at WP:VG/RS. About.com: Yes, sorry, noticed that the about.com source was a staff review, not a user submission. In any event, there's still no significant coverage of the company itself. Marasmusine (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly per nom. The company has not received the significant coverage required for a verifiable article, and most of their products are nonnotable as well. We can't be basing articles about entire companies off ofjust a few sources. Even with some references, the article is still largely unsourced (and likely impossible to source with independent referencing). ThemFromSpace 15:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this was deleted once before, wouldn't that make this a candidate for speedy deletion (G4, I believe)? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no sufficient independent sources appear to exist to support the claim that the subject is a notable game developer. Its games also have questionable notability seeing as one of their biggest has just been deleted at AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Multiple reliable sources available regarding the company and its products from publications covering the MMO market. [35] [36] [37] [38]- hahnchen 16:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm(Talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The AfD for AdventureQuest closed as keep, but all their other products were deleted, although I think that WarpForce is somewhat notable too given the IGN review, despite that fact that they found the game crappy. Pcap ping 22:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Let this page stay. We already lost the "AdventureQuest Worlds" page where I objected to it's deletion on it's Articles for Deletion page. And the game was in the middle of it's Darkovia part. Someone revive it please. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The place to appeal for resuscitation of a deleted article is WP:DRV. You'll have to read about the procedure and then be eloquent and persuasive. -- Hoary (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one opened a page for that one. And tonight is AdventureQuest Worlds first Chinese New Year. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems that three quarters or more of this article is utterly unsourced. The article has vocal support above; why do these supporters not add sources to the various claims made? (Do reliable sources perhaps not exist?) -- Hoary (talk) 03:15, 11 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Gastineau[edit]

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

This is a very poorly sourced BLP of a non-notable professional athlete's wife, and model's mother. Notability is not inheritend, and the three references currently cited provide nothing more than brief mentions of the article subject. In fact, one is little more than a divorce decree from her famous husband. Others provide either brief quotes from, or brief mentions of, the article subject. This simply fails our notability requirements on multiple levels. UnitAnode 18:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are numerous athletes' spouses who are notable enough for an article of their own, but this isn't one of them. Blueboy96 19:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable. She is sourced as being the star of a network reality show, which handily satisfies WP:ENT. The TV show and surrounding publicity are about an event that would not normally be notable, being the (ex) wife of a famous person. But that's what reality shows do, they make a public event out of everyday life. The article is, and should be, about her prominence in that regard and not an in-universe account of her private life as revealed by the show. We cover reality shows just like we cover everything else, we report on what the sources have to say about things. For comparison's sake the situation is analogous to Sharon Osbourne's. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to The Gastineau Girls. True, notability is not inherited, nor does there appear to be any non-inherited notability abound either. JBsupreme (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article was originally deleted in the Jan 20 mass deletion, and I requested its restoration and sourced what currently appears in the article. There is additional information in the prior history that I haven't gotten around to adding back yet, as we triage the mass of articles which have been deleted and prodded with little care. Unfortunately, the nominator has apparently not followed WP:BEFORE in making this nomination. The subject of this article has been subject to press coverage for most of the past 25 years, to varying degrees; she actually is also a quite successful businesswoman, though that hasn't been added back to the article yet. FYI, for what its worth, this was also a fairly popular article before its deletion, e.g., it got 4330 hits in Nov. 09.--Milowent (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Wikidemon, meets WP:ENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikip (talk • contribs) 22:12, February 1, 2010
  • Keep per Wikidemon, star of national cable network television show is pretty notable. --GRuban (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Were she just a person divorced from another famous person, I doubt we'd be having this discussion. But she's the star of a nationally shown program which is about her, no less, and the article is more than adequately sourced.--Father Goose (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:09, 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, Swarm(Talk) 20:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough for wikipedia.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Believe me, IDONTLIKEIT either, but she is clearly notable per WP:BIO, and the article now has multiple, independent, reliable sources to confirm that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wine Guy (talk • contribs) 08:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Oops, sorry. Wine Guy~Talk 21:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given that there are sources independent of the subject, and that they cover the subject rather than her spouse, I think we have enough to satisfy policy. It is thin, granted, but it is sufficient. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This may not be the type of biography that we prefer, but per WP:BIO it is notable enough. RFerreira (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not the most critical bio in the project, but if having a series about you doesn't make you notable, then I don't know what does. Yilloslime TC 04:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep I'd also like to see notability criteria altered to leave out celebrities like this. But until and unless we do that all we can do is insist that like this they are properly referenced - I've already semi protected it due to past vandalism. (I was the one who restored this for referencing, and would request that those voting keep consider adding this to their watchlist because of past vandalism) ϢereSpielChequers 14:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was notable enough to be given her own reality television show(along with her daughter), and has ample mention on Google news search [39]. She isn't just mentioned as being the ex-wife of the NFL guy. Dream Focus 20:23, 13 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. As can be seen, the main question surrounding this discussion is whether or not the subject falls under WP:BLP1E. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is harder seen in the discussion, with the only conclusion that the subject is likely a borderline WP:BLP1E case. All factors considered (including being a BLP, and there a slight margin of votes towards keeping), it seems that a no consensus closure is appropriate. Regards to all, and as some mentioned, a merge discussion may be warranted on the article's talk page. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Berg[edit]

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

UNreferenced negative BLP, granted with external links that may back it up.

However, the the main reason to delete is it isn't notable. Seems to be part of a "lets write an article about every US sooldier who's been naughty in Iraq" series. One wonders at the motivation.

He went to Iraq. For some reason (stress, anger, illness?) he shot his Iraqi partner. He lied to cover up. He got caught and convicted of manslaughter. The end. Scott Mac (Doc) 10:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of what he did, extensive coverage such as this makes him notable enough to not delete.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS and that's news coverage you are linking to. Is there any evidence of continuing interest or significance that would make this move from being newsworthy to being encyclopedic? (see also WP:BLP1E).--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi security forces: a strategy for success By Anthony H. Cordesman, Patrick Baetjer
Crimes of power & states of impunity: the U.S. response to terror By Michael Welch (Ph. D.)
Books also discuss Berg, so the fact newspapers are used as citations is hardly proof that this fits NOTNEWS. NOTNEWS is for "Somebody ran over Paris Hilton's dog" or "the security guard that eminem punched". Not for somebody convicted of killing an allied soldier in cold blood during a war. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT WP:NOTNEWS -- if the event is forgotten a couple of weeks afterwards, has not long term impact on policy discussions, or the public consciousness -- then WP:NOTNEWS applies -- correct? Sherurcij offered several instances when Berg's spontaneous shooting was considered appropriate to discuss long after his conviction. There are others. A year after his conviction the Associated Press distributed an article on more recent trials, suggesting the military may start to use the death penalty against GIs who kill when using force outside of the context of battle. The article listed twenty similar past or pending cases, including Berg's, which might, in other circumstances, have resulted in a death sentence. As I wrote below, serious readers want to look up further details of when they read news articles. I know I want to do that when I have questions about things I read. I believe our serious readers first stop is the same as mine -- the wikipedia. Geo Swan (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lolita C. Baldor (2006-06-29). "Iraq murder charges raise specter of rarely used military death sentence". North County Times. Archived from the original on 2010-01-30. A string of alleged atrocities by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is testing the military justice system and raising the possibility that American soldiers may face the death penalty for acts in countries where every street can be a battlefield.
  • Keep, hate to be the first to break Godwin's law, but we do seem to have a biography on individual soldiers from every war who "broke rank" and did something bad and were later prosecuted for it. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, don't follow the Godwin's law bit. The other half of your arguement seems to be that other crap exists so we must keep that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, did I call the other articles crap? I believe they fit the scope of the encyclopaedia, just as I believe this does. As an aside, it's generally considered annoying if the nominator decides to argue with every person who disagrees with him. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion. That means it is a conversation. My point is that the existence of another article doesn't mean we should keep this one. What I think we should be debating is whether this has any lasting significance, or whether it is just a news story, in which case our policy (WP:NOT) would indicate we remove it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:BLP1E. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of this murder, and we should avoid having an article about them barring extreme circumstances. NW (Talk) 18:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, standard WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The nomination states: "For some reason (stress, anger, illness?) he shot his Iraqi partner." This is exactly the kind of circumstance that earns what our nominator calls "naughty" soldiers passing mention in editorials, and commentary. Those editorials either assume their readers already know the previously published details of Dustin Berg's story -- or they hope to gloss over those details, and paint a different version than what neutral sources provide. Our readers want to be able to look to their favorite neutral source, for a balanced neutral account. Suppressing neutral, balanced material, backed up WP:RS, is a disservice to the serious readers who look to us to provide neutral and comprehensive coverage of notable topics. Geo Swan (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's see, he joined the military, served in a war, killed a friendly, lied about it, got a Purple Heart for it, was tried, and convicted, and had the medal taken away. Any one of those alone would possibly fail WP:BLP1E, but all these events taken together create notable BLP. -- Kendrick7talk 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I think it's a shame that deletionists are twisting a rule, BLP1E, which was designed to prevent the ridicule of circus freaks and petty criminals, in order to whitewash from our pages the biography of a notorious murderer of international repute. -- Kendrick7talk 01:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Not notable, wp:blp1e. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly merge. At base this is still a BLP1E, and a negative one at that (which makes it worse). The key point for me is that the article section "Long term impact of Berg's shooting" does not in fact demonstrate a long-term impact, nor notability for Berg beyond the crime of which he was convicted. That section makes it clear that increasing calls to re-institute the death penalty in the military, and the move to tighter rules of engagement, did not stem solely or even primarily from Berg's case, rather his case was just one of many where American GI's behaved badly (to put it mildly). Another way of putting it is that the section as written is not a get-out-of-BLP1E card. Essentially what we have is an ostensibly biographical article with nothing whatsoever about this person and their life (which is what a biography is), but rather a crime scene report and account of an investigation/trial. In a situation like that it's usually a sign that BLP1E is operative and that we should probably not have an article on the person. I would probably be okay with merging this into a general article about notable crimes committed by "coalition" soldiers in Iraq. I do not believe that currently exists (Human rights in post-invasion Iraq and Iraq prison abuse scandals were the closest I could find), but it probably could since there have been general discussions about the phenomenon, and mentions of individual cases would be appropriate. In the context of a possible merge it's worth taking note of some similar AfDs in the past, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James P. Barker and more importantly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Dale Green. Ultimately the articles on both of these GIs were merged/redirected to Mahmudiyah killings which was quite right in my view. Berg's case is not completely analogous since it was a one-off event involving two people (thus no ready target like Mahmudiyah killings), but it's not the only case of its kind, and we could discuss the most noteworthy examples of violent crimes in a general article (I'm not clever enough to think of a title at the moment). If such an article was created now I'd support a merge, but if not I think this needs to be deleted as a BLP1E, with the content possibly restored and merged later once there is a target for merging. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above comment contains the passage: "Essentially what we have is an ostensibly biographical article with nothing whatsoever about this person and their life (which is what a biography is)..." I have seen this argument, or close variations of it, advanced by those advocating deletion, in many ((afd))s. I suggest that if someone is truly notable, it doesn't matter if we know their date of birth, or where they want to school, or what they did before or after the events that made them notable. I wrote an essay "The earliest sockpuppet to be unmasked...", where I describe a notable historical figure about whom we knew nothing personal whatsoever. He was a medieval scholar, who published a significant scientific advance under a pseudonym, using the name of an earlier scholar. Nothing about this individual is known, not his age, day job, religion, location, or even exactly when he published his work. It seems to me that False Geber is clearly sufficiently notable to have an article about him, in the complete absence of any confirmed biographical details. And, in general, it seems to me that when a good faith search doesn't produce those routine biographical details, we should go with the details we have. Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kendrick7 has suggested, below, renaming the article the murder of Hussein Kamel Hadi Dawood al-Zubeidi, per WP:PSEUDO. While other contributors say they would be okay with merging some information from this article into an omnibus article "about notable crimes committed by 'coalition' soldiers in Iraq". In my experience these omnibus articles are often a big disservice to our readers -- because they erode the value of two of the most powerful features that distinguish wikipedia articles from plain old world-wide-web pages. Merging perfectly satisfactory small articles to omnibus articles seriously erodes the value of the "what links here" button. Currently it can provide a list of articles that explicitly link to "Dustin Berg". This is very useful. Once merged clicking "what links here" would be largely worthless to a reader only interested in Dustin Berg's case. Similarly perfectly satisfactory small articles allow a reader or contributor to have a narrowly focussed watchlist. A reader or contributor may only be interested in some of notable cases in Iraq. It is best for them for the articles to remain separate, so they can selectively choose which to watch. Once merged, if they put the omnibus article on their watchlist they get advised of every change to that article -- when most of the changes won't interest them. Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The section there makes sense to me, for it shows the impact on history-worthy events which is one of the considerations for keeping this sort of article. It was removed by the nominator just now in the course of the discussion, but I have reverted him, so as not to give the impression of deliberately weakening an article while it's up for Afd. If the article is kept, the matter of content can be discussed in the usual way. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we're just coming at it from two different angles. Your view is that he's an individual whose actions (along with those of many others) led to certain history-worthy changes (e.g. altered rules of engagement for the American armed forces) and thus he should have an article, whereas I start with the history-worthy aspects (the fact that American troops committed a number of crimes while occupying Iraq, changes to military policy during the war) and see Berg as just one example of individuals who had an effect of these larger events, and therefore someone who is only worth mentioning in "event" articles since he is not otherwise notable. I don't think we lose any encyclopedic information by merging his info into an event article (or deleting it for now, and then restoring and merging when an event article is created), and I think WP:BLP1E is the operative policy policy here, which seems to say clearly that the merge-to-the-event approach is the correct one. WP:HARM is relevant here too I think, and while personally I am appalled by what Berg did (though there could well be mitigating psychological factors the like of which are seen in war) , I think we do actively harm him (unfairly and unnecessarily) by maintaining an article that mentions only the crime he committed and nothing else about his life when we could put the relevant content elsewhere. Currently our article is the number one google hit on a search of Berg's name. Obviously news stories about this will linger and haunt Berg for years, but we're under no obligation to add to that with a wiki article about him, and indeed BLP policy seems to me to militate against that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your concern about an article on this notable person will "haunt Berg for years" is misplaced. Any killer could claim an article on them would "haunt them for years". That he spontaneously shot an ally, in cold blood, is extremely well documented. That is what BLP requires that we don't frivolously republish wild rumors, innuendo and slander. But when someone is convicted this is not a wild rumor. I think our nominator has unconsciously made a big mistake. Our nominator is writing from the POV that it is routine, normal, mundane, expected, for American GIs to spontaneously shoot their foreign partners in the middle of an uneventful routine patrol. I don't accept that premise. Geo Swan (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say I was concerned that these events would haunt them for years, I simply said that they would, and furthermore that "we're under no obligation to add to that with a wiki article about him, and indeed BLP policy seems to me to militate against that." Specifically, BLP1E says we generally do not have articles about individuals in situations like this, rather they should be merged to an "event" article. You also seem to be making up out of whole cloth the idea that the nominator "is writing from the POV that it is routine, normal, mundane, expected, for American GIs to spontaneously shoot their foreign partners in the middle of an uneventful routine patrol." Did he say anything remotely like that in the nomination? Of course not, rather he said, this is a one-off story and not worthy of an article. Per our BLP policy, that is exactly right. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you and I reading the same nomination? Our nominator wrote: "he shot his Iraqi partner. He lied to cover up. He got caught and convicted of manslaughter. The end." He characterized Berg as simply having been "naughty". Please re-read what our nominator wrote, and tell me you do not recognize that he has fallen into the POV that this was a routine event. Geo Swan (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're reading the same thing, it's just that you are reading into it while I'm reading what was actually written. He does not ever use the word "routine"—he is clearly saying Berg does not deserve an article just because of this one tragedy, which is what our BLP policy says. Ironically, given your charges that the deletion argument is somehow evidence of American bias, if I recall correctly the nominator is not American. This is all beside the point though so I'm not going to debate it further. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our nominator never called this killing a tragedy. He characterized this deliberate killing as "naughty". Seriously, you don't recognize characterizing a deliberate killing as "naughty" suggests it was routine, mundane, unimportant? Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No matter how I look at it, this is still WP:BLP1E. WP:NOTNEWS probably applies too. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with those who have stated his actions did cause policy to be changed, this a notable case for the history books. Very encyclopedic. Dream Focus 13:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important point so I feel obligated to reply. It is simply not true that his actions caused policy to be changed. There are two things discussed in the article somewhat in line with that idea: calls to bring back the death penalty in the military, and changes to the rules of engagement. For the first see the story here, where Berg is one of 14 soldiers mentioned as having been convicted of a crime for the death of an Iraqi since 2003. Four pending cases and two acquittals are also mentioned. The article simply does not say that "Berg's actions caused policy to be changed," or indeed that his actions (solely or even primarily) led to a possibility of that happening (I don't think any soldier has been sentenced death since then, i.e. the policy has not changed, and if it did happen it would be this guy which is a completely unrelated case). This article, our source for the info about rules of engagement, does not remotely claim that Berg's actions contributed to the changing of those rules, rather he is presented as an example of how "soldiers themselves can face consequences for wrongfully killing Iraqis." My point here is that it is not, given the sources presented, up for debate as to whether or not Berg caused any military policy to be changed. He did not, and the sources do not remotely claim that he did. Given that, Berg is a clear-cut example of a WP:BLP1E, meaning this needs to be deleted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted in the other place it was claimed the Lolita Baldur article described cases similar to Berg's -- that is simply incorrect. The other cases she described were unauthorized "mercy killings", the questionable use of force in combat, and lying about a tragic accident. Correspondent above brings up Major Nidal Malik Hasan, which reinforces my concern that when American soldiers kill other American soldiers they should not receive different coverage from us than when American soldiers deliberately kill allied personnel. Geo Swan (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misreading again, and it's not really acceptable to misconstrue what I said to such an extreme degree. Did I say American soldiers who kill other Americans should receive more coverage than those who kill allied personnel? Re-read what I wrote about Nidal. It says that if the U.S. military is going to seek the death penalty against anyone (i.e. change its policy) it would be Nidal, which is simply a fact which I presented as an aside to my main point. I'm not in charge of the U.S. military so you can't blame me for its officials being more angry when a GI kills American soldiers than when he or she kills allied ones (or foreign civilians). Ironically I was one who argued strongly for Nidal's article to be deleted when it was first created, and you will find few people on earth more opposed to what has happened in Iraq than I. If you are not going to read what I actually write and instead impart meanings to the words which are simply not there it's not possible to have a conversation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went and looked at the arguments you offered to delete the article on Major Nidal. I'll skip over most of the points where I disagree with you. In that discussion you both: (1) compared Nidal's story with that of Richard Jewell's; and (2) claimed Nidal's story would "fade into obscurity", if he were acquitted. I too have brought up Richard Jewell's story in ((afd)) discussions. You wrote that thinking of how the wikipedia would handled his story, when it broke in 1996, made you "shudder". I, on the other hand, have suggested that our policies on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER would have protected Jewell so our coverage would have been an island of fairness when contrasted with that of the MSM. But, you contradicted yourself when you suggested Nidal's case would "fade into obscurity", if he were acquitted. We shouldn't expect Richard Jewell's case to "fade into obscurity", any time soon. That is another contrast between your arguments as to why the aritcle on Nidal should be deleted, and your arguments here. You repeated, many times, that Nidal's story was a breaking story, and the allegations hadn't been tested in court. You repeatedly suggested that, if he were acquitted, even if he were acquitted due to mental illness, his story would, in your words, "fade into obscurity". Well, Berg's is not a breaking story. He has been convicted. During World War 2 Japanese citizens, and citizens whose parents or grandparents were Japanese citizens, were sent to internment camps in the USA and Canada. We cover those camps, that internment, and we have articles on some of the individual internees. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be implying that we should nominate articles for deletion when someone thinks they are largely forgotten, and a nominator thinks they should be entirely forgotten. Should I and others who think there is continued value in covering the internment of Japanese-Americans and Japanese-Canadians be on watch that other contributors will try to erase those stories from the historical record, on the grounds their stories have "faded into obscurity"? I don't know if that is what you really meant, but if it is what you really meant, I find your suggestion frightening. Similarly, I believe Berg's notability has been established, and any arguments that he has "faded into obscurity" are disservices to our future readers. Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you've got me, I'm in favor of deleting our coverage of the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII—that's the obvious implication of arguing to delete (or if possible merge) this article on one dude. You're so far afield of the discussion (and reality) here that I can't even reply to your argument, but if you look on my user page you'll see I'm a history graduate student (also a college teacher) so erasing things from the historical record is hardly something I'm going to do. I'm not going to discuss the Nidal article with you because that AfD is over and the level of coverage of Nidal and Berg are in different universes. Tthe two are not analogous, and somehow you've managed to turn my simple statement of fact that Nidal is probably the only U.S. soldier in jeopardy of being sentenced to death for his crimes into me being okay with putting Korematsu v. United States up for deletion because most people don't know what the hell that is anymore. Unsurprisingly I'm basically I'm done with this conversation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You chose to bring up your arguments for deletion of the article on Major Nidal. If you didn't think your arguments about the Nidal ((afd)) were relevant I suggest you probably shouldn't have brought them up here. You did bring up your arguments in the Nidal ((afd)), and as a courtesy to you, I took the trouble to go and read what you wrote. So, I find your use of mockery and sarcasm of my good faith response to arguments you yourself referred to inappropriate. In addition to your use of mockery and sarcasm being uncivil, I remind you that many valuable contributors to the English language wikipedia are not native speakers of English. Mockery and sarcasm are tricky, depend on an understanding of idiom not accessible to non-native speakers of English. This is an additional reason to simply state your position in as clear a fashion as possible. Geo Swan (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT your academic qualifications, I worked in the academic world for about a decade -- in a support role, not as an academic. I liked most of the grad students I worked with, and had great respect for a minority of them. But if any of them were to claim their academic qualifications, in and of themselves, meant those of us who weren't professional academics should defer to them, I'd remind them that the wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and tell them that I don't consider their real world academic qualifications, generally relevant. I'd tell them that there are projects similar to the wikipedia, like the Citizendium, which encourage professional academics to make use of their professional expertise, and contribute what wikipedia contributors would call "original research". But professional academics who contribute here are not WP:RS just as I am not an WP:RS. The respect I give a wikipedia contributor who is a professional academic, on their day job, is going to be based on the strength of their arguments, and, frankly, on their willingness -- or lack thereof -- to engage in civil, collegial discussion. I've reviewed the Geneva Conventions, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Army Regulation 190-8 -- the regulation which describes how GIs should treat captives. Should I hesitate to challenge a professional academic's assertions on war crimes, when I have no reason to believe they too have reviewed these documents? To what extent should I defer to a professional academic's opinions of war crimes, when I know they have reviewed relevant documents? Why shouldn't I give their informed opinion no more and no less respect than I would give any other intelligent, informed, good faith contributor, when they can conduct discussion in a civil, collegial manner? After all, they are not WP:RS, just as I am not. Any position they put into article space has to be backed up by references -- same as the rest of us. Geo Swan (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good god. Did I ask you to defer to me because I am a grad student, indeed did I even remotely imply you should do that? No, obviously I did not, and to basically accuse me of doing that as you do above is a shitty thing to do. You suggested (bizarrely) that I might want to scrub our articles on Japanese-Americans who were put in camps during WWII. I responded that of course I don't want to do that, particularly since I study and teach history and would never want to "scrub" any history-related articles. From that you suddenly start talking as though I asked you do as I say because I'm in grad school, or that I'm somehow contributing "original research" and should go over to Citizendium instead. Nonsense. Again you are making stuff up, and I must say in years of AfD discussions I have never had anyone repeatedly misconstrue what I've written as you have here. I don't know if this is something you normally do, but it's pretty much impossible to have a conversation with someone who keeps making absurd accusations that have no connection with reality. Reply if you want, but quit making stuff up and reply to what is actually written. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- various commentators here claim the blp1e clause of the BLP policy requires deleting this article. But the blp1e section has a second paragraph, which states: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." Americans soldiers spontaneously killing their fellow US soldiers, on purpose, not "friendly-fire is rare. It has happened just three times this decade. And we provided extensive coverage of each instance. American soldiers spontaneously killing allied soliders, on purpose, not "friendly-fire", is even more rare. I believe this is the only incident this past decade, and perhaps deep into the last century. I urge the closing administrator to therefore discount the blp1e arguments. Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read the article. He did not kill a soldier, he killed an Iraqi policeman with whom he was "partnered," probably during a routine neighborhood patrol designed to increase cooperation between the U.S. military and the civil authorities (i.e. not military) in Iraq. And you are incorrect that it's the only similar incident in the last decade, much less "deep into the last century." This AP story (which we cite in the article on Berg) mentions two cases where American GIs killed Iraqi soldiers, and one where they killed an Iraqi translator. So basically all of your claims are incorrect—he didn't kill an allied soldier, rather a safety official in an allied government, other allied soldiers have been killed recently by Americans, not to mention that dozens of Iraqi citizens have been killed by American soldiers. So the event here is not "significant", and indeed the AP story cited above mentions it as one of 20 similar cases. Discounting the BLP1E argument is about the only way to avoid deletion, but you have not presented a valid reason for doing so. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, his victim was an Iraqi policeman, not an Iraqi soldier -- a minor point, when he was armed with an AK-47 and they were on a joint patrol. I continue to suggest that it is an instance of Americo-centricism that when American soldiers kill other American soldiers that event is regarded as extraordinary, but not when they kill allied personnel. I stand by my interpretation of the nominator and several other contributor's comments here, that treating this as "not news" is equivalent to stating that the non-combat, non-friendly-fire deliberate killing of allied soldiers (or reasonable equivalent) is routine and mundane. Further, I looked at the other GIs convicted. Contrary to your claims, none of those cases come anywhere comparable to Dustin Berg's killing. Those men were charged/convicted with unauthorized "mercy killings", or questionable use of force in what they regarded as a combat situation, or in one case lying about a tragic accident. None of the other cases involved the deliberate shooting an allied personnel in a non-combat setting. Geo Swan (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you missed Federico Daniel Merida. But even putting that aside, you are not explaining why "the deliberate shooting an allied personnel in a non-combat setting" is somehow different (and apparently more notable) than shooting an Iraqi civilian. For me they are both examples of a member of an occupying army killing citizens of the occupied country (and equally tragic and newsworthy), and for you to claim that an American GI killing an Iraqi policeman (and yes, that is different than an Iraqi soldier) is somehow particularly worthy of coverage is nothing more than your own opinion and original research. You may think it's different, but the AP story covered all of these incidents together and so do other press accounts, suggesting that reliable sources view them all as a larger pattern of unsanctioned violence by American personnel in Iraq. That's exactly why all of these incidents and individuals should be covered in one article (Crimes committed by American military personnel against Iraqi citizens, or something similar) rather than in individual bios. The only evidence you have that this is not a BLP1E is your unsourced assertion that Berg's case matters more because you think it does, but that's not what secondary sources suggest. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WRT to Federico Daniel Merida -- are you acknowledging that you exagerrated when you claimed Dustin Berg's case was no different than the other cases described by Lolita Baldor?
Why is an American soldier killing allied personnel more notable than an American soldier killing an Iraqi civilian? Please don't mix apples and oranges. How many Iraqi civilians have been killed by the USA? Several hundred thousand the last time I checked. Almost none of those several thousand Iraqi deaths received any coverage in WP:RS. Of those that did, most seem to be unambiguously "friendly fire", or "friendly fire" given the loose rules of engagement GIs operated under in past years. Yes, the killing of civilians, when it wasn't "friendly fire" and when covered significantly enough in WP:RS, merits coverage here. Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Federico Daniel Merida, I do not know what you are asking. I never said Berg's case was "no different," I said it was one of a number of "similar incidents," and Merida's incident is indeed "similar" as are a number of others in terms of U.S. soldiers killing Iraqis. You really need to work on responding to what people actually write and not what your brain thinks they wrote.
With respect to your second point, obviously there is a (practical, but, for me at least, not moral) difference between killing Iraqi civilians under the rules of engagement (we bombed your house but it was on orders so it's "okay") and one soldier just walking up and shooting someone in the head for no reason. The latter incidents get prosecuted (and covered), the former usually do not (unfortunately). My point above is that reliable sources have grouped these "illegal" killings (by U.S. military rules) together and have not said, "Berg's case is a big deal because he killed a policeman, not a baker." You are the only person suggesting his crime is different from the dozens of other crimes committed by American service members in Iraq. If you really want to keep this you should find a source that talks about Berg's case being particularly extraordinary, because so far the only one we have is you and that obviously doesn't cut it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, in the interests of brevity I didn't point out that in your question you didn't distinguish between civilians killed in "friendly fire" incidents, and deliberate killings that couldn't possibly be justified by the rules of engagement. You have suggested above, several times, that I don't understand you. If you aren't trying to somehow suggest I can't distinguish between "friendly fire" incidents and deliberate killings that couldn't possibly be authorized by the official rules of engagement, then, try as I might, I frankly don't know what you meant to suggest.
I am confused by your claim that I am the only person who has argued that Berg's case is notable -- surely all the other contributors who voiced a "keep" opinion expressed that position?
You suggested that a soldier who killed an Iraqi baker, in circumstances that couldn't be justified under the rules of engagement, not an Iraqi soldier or policeman, would be just as notable as the soldier who killed killed an Iraqi soldier or policeman. On a personal level I agree. But my personal feelings on this are just as irrelevant as your personal feelings. If you come across a soldier, for whom there are this level of WP:RS, who killed an Iraqi baker, doctor, or schoolteacher, in circumstances that can't be justified under the rules of engagement, and you want to argue that soldier, or that incident, merits an article, tell me, and I'll help work on it, and argue for its retention if is nominated for deletion. Berg's deliberate killing is noteworthy because (1) it was a deliberate killing; and (2) he was actually caught and prosecuted. If you know of an Iraqi civilian, whose deliberated killing by a soldier, couldn't possibily be justified by the rules of engagement, I'll be happy to work with you on covering that individual, or that incident. Geo Swan (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT blp1e -- IMO this nomination illustrates some very troublesome weaknesses of the blp1e portion of BLP, and how it is interpreted here in the deletion fora. I think Kendrick7 makes several important points. Kendrick7 suggested Berg played a role in multiple events. I think it is a serious weakness that no policy or guideline tries to define what is a "one event". But even if, for the sake of argument, Berg was only involved in a "one event", that blp1e section of BLP has that second paragraph: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." Coverage spans four years, and was picked up world-wide. I think that while Berg does not rival John Hinckley, this article too is one of the exceptions allowed for in the second paragraph.
BLP is not one of the wikipedia's original policies. Prior to the policy we relied on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VER, and common sense. One problem with this kind of overly broad interpretation of blp1e is that it opens a backdoor path for the wikipedia to be become adulterated by contributor's bias.
The second paragraph of this nomination is written from the point of view that soldiers committing murder or manslaughter is routine and unexceptional. No offense but this seems to me to be an injection of a controversial point of view -- with no points offered to defend the injection of this controversial point of view.
People get killed in wars and other conflicts. Most of those deaths are unexceptional, and don't merit coverage here. Soldiers killing enemy soldiers in battle is routine and unexceptional. And unfortunately it is also pretty common for soldiers to make what their officers and peers recognize as honest mistakes, and, in the heat of battle to kill their buddies, allied troops, or innocent civilian bystanders -- so called "friendly fire incidents. According to the laws of war, none of these are crimes. Similarly, killing prisoners who are rioting, or trying to escape, and who won't obey an order to halt, is not a crime.
But the Geneva Conventions, national regulations, like the USA's Uniform Code of Military Justice, and local commander's "rules of engagement", lay out when and what kind of use of force is authorized. Anything beyond that is a crime.
Off-duty soldiers killing their buddies, civilians, or allied troops is exceptional. The death of prisoners who weren't rioting or trying to escape is also exceptional. As are killings like this one, where a soldier deliberately killed his ally on what should have been a routine patrol.
As I wrote above, that 2006 article that talked about the possibility of harsher sentences for GIs who kill listed Berg and 20 other cases. Our nominator used mockery, rather than reasoned argument, when they characterized GIs who were alleged to have been killers, and mocked the idea that we should: "write an article about every US sooldier who's been naughty". I encourage them to drop the mockery, and offer a serious explanation why every soldier who has faced the allegation they acted as killers, not soldiers, and been the subject of substantial, world-wide coverage, should not be covered by the wikipedia. This does not preclude having an article, or several articles even, that address what the cases of killers or alleged killers have in common. But, when these individuals are the subject of sufficient substantial coverage to establish notability, and allow us to draft a neutrally written article that cites verifiable, reliable, authoritative references, a summary article is not an adequate substitute for individual articles on the individual notable cases of killers or alleged killers.
The Lolita Baldor article, cited half a dozen times in this ((afd)), devotes a paragraph to Dustin Berg's case, and another paragraph for those of the other killers and alleged killers. Currently, a curious reader of her article, who wanted more detail, or a high school student, or an undergrad, doing their homework, can look up the notable details, which have been covered in verifiable, reliable, authoritative references. If this nomination for deletion were to succeed the curious reader, high school student or undergrad, would have to start right back at the beginning, and do their own web-search -- even though some of us already conducted this web-search for them. A merge would be little better. If every notable, referenced detail from the individual articles were merged into an omnibus article, there is no justification for the merge.
In terms of the injection of bias into article space I think we were better off when we relied on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VER, and common sense, prior to the use of deletion arguments based on blp1e, which rely so heavily on contributor's personal points of view.
Finally there is an aspect of the current version of the wikimedia software that those who routinely favor merging routinely overlook or discount. Our current version of the wikimedia software allows us to put entire articles on our watchlist. But it does not allow us to put a section of a large omnibus article on our watchlist. Suppose an interested reader, or interested contributor, wanted to be advised of new material, or excisions that concerned Dustin Berg, or Federico Daniel Merida -- the two GIs who killed allied personnel -- but didn't want to be advised of new material or excisions that concerned GIs who weren't convicted, or who killed Iraqi civilians. Currently contributors can place those two articles on their watchlist, and leave the others off their watchlist. Alternately, the contributor can choose to place the articles about individuals who weren't convicted on their watchlist, and leave the rest off.
A related aspect of the current restrictions on how we are advised about wikilinks concerns what makes the "what links here" button useful. Currently a contributor who clicks on the "what links here" button for Dustin Berg can expect the articles listed there to specificly address Dustin Berg. If the Dustin Berg article were merged into an omnibus article, with the articles on the killers redirected to that omnibus article, the utility of the "what links here" would be seriously eroded. The list of articles produced by clicking on the what links here button would be much longer, and very few of those articles would specifically address Dustin Berg. Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If worst comes to worst, per WP:PSEUDO. nothing precludes us from having an article on the murder of Hussein Kamel Hadi Dawood al-Zubeidi, with all the same information, even with Dustin Berg as a redirect to it, although I find such shuffling of the deck-chairs[40] a tad pretentious. -- Kendrick7talk 00:12, 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, Swarm(Talk) 20:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are more than enough significant, reliable sources discussing this person, what he did, the surrounding events and aftermath etc., to consider him notable by just about any guideline you choose. Just another "naughty soldier"? Please. Wine Guy~Talk 02:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP-1E. The broader issues should be included in articles on those subjects ie. military tribunals, the death penalty etc. etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:N/CA outlines the notability of criminal acts, while WP:PERP (a sub-section of the former, the notability guidelines for perpetrators of crime. Given this article is about the individual, rather than the event, WP:PERP applies. A criminal perpetrators is notable if any one of the following is true:

    1. The perpetrator is notable for something beyond the crime itself... (Berg fails on this one)

    2. The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure... (Fails)

    3. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event... This, according to the guideline is true if there is persistent coverage about the event. This is also not true. Here you can see that news peaked during the event (the trial) and has dropped away completely i a relatively short period of time. Compare this to Beverley Allitt, who has sustained news coverage for more than a decade. Other than that, he gets little more than a passing mention in articles about related matters (for example the North County Times article cited in the "Reaction" section of the article.

    In all, there is simply not enough under the current guidelines for notability of perpetrators of crime to warrant Dustin Berg's inclusion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep or merge. The nominator does not mention: Dustin_Berg#Reaction which was a direct reaction to this case, making it much more than just one event. Incredibly well referenced, as the nominator appears to acknowledges. Okip (formerly Ikip) 13:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does he not mention it, but he made an attempt to remove it from the article during the period that the AfD was running, on Feb 2 to be exact, at [41] That shows pretty clearly he recognizes how much it undercuts his case. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A few things to note with the "Reaction" section:

1. Berg rates only a passing mention in the first article, along with many others. He isn't central to it in any way. Similarly, in the second article, he is not central to the story - here we have a long story with a short reference to Berg.

2. Even if the reaction were significant, we have to ask if the reaction is to the event or the person. When it comes to the notability of criminal acts, it is usually the event that is notable and causes the reaction. The perpetrator will be notable less often (see the notability guidelines as to what makes a perpetrator notable).

3. In this case, if the perpetrator is notable, why not the victim? The answer is that neither are really notable, as they are only known for the one event and even within the event haven't established notability in accordance with WP guidelines. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipeterproject is quite correct, and as can been seen from my edit summery this was my reason for removing it. Not as DGG falsely asserts 'because I recognise it undercuts my case". That is a clear assumption of my bad faith, and ignoring my reasoned edit summery. An apology for this attack on my integrity would be appreciated.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the face of the debacle you recently felt compelled to start, leading many people to question your integrity, you have a surprisingly thin skin Power.corrupts (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly re-name. The case has some BLP1E features, but the underlying event is certainly sufficiently notable to deserve a separate article and not to be merged to anything else. The amount of coverage is significant and it extends over a significant period of time, so this is not a WP:NOTNEWS case. The BLP1E issue can be solved by simply moving the name of the article to something like Court matial of Dustin Berg or something similar. Nsk92 (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with preceding - although it has some BLP1E features, it is integral in the sequelae raised in the article. Maybe merging some of the related crimes but I am not sure what it can be renamed to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Classic misunderstanding/misuse of BLP1E. While a BLP article is probably not justified, it is obvious that the case has general interest. The solution is to rename and improve the article and keep the content, not to delete the content. It's the old story with the baby, the bath and the water. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why is it obvious? This is the problem with these kind of debates. Sometimes it's uncclear what we are debating! I would argue (see above) that the article in question (the BLP) is "obviously" not notable in accordance with the policy. But the debate might be completely different if it were about the actual event. So is a keep really a keep if it's actually supporting a move and a rewrite? Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:57, 14 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Barben[edit]

Ted Barben (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Does not meet biographical notability criteria. Barben is mentioned in a single book: see pages 77-86 in [42]. The narrative is an account of the author's professional relationship with Barben, and is written in a tone of glowing praise. There is nothing wrong with that, but for our purposes it doesn't sound like an objective source indicating notability. No other article links to this article. CosineKitty (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm unable to find any media coverage of this individual, and the book about him is published by a very small, possibly vanity, press (The Best-Kept Career Secret). Pburka (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I read it, this book was published by IHC Books of Hillsdale, Michigan, and as far as I can tell that's the only book that publisher has ever released. According to WorldCat, though, it's held by 117 libraries, which actually isn't too bad. As for this article, it's a promotional bio of an industrial businessman mentioned in a personal anecdote in one non-notable book. He's named in several patents, but I can't find the significant coverage needed to pass WP:BIO.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I've done several searches, and I can't find much online about this inventor, see [43], [44] and [45]. The problem is not just the paucity of sources, but the absolute absence of reliable sources. On the other hand, he was most active in the 1960s and 1970s, so his career predates the creation of the Internet by Al Gore. I would agree to change my mind if someone could find a good textbook citation, even one. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of significant coverage to establish notability. The book cited here was written by Barben's business partner, so it hardly makes Barben widely notable to be mentioned in it. Otherwise, all I can find is a few press releases. It's possible his invention was a significant advance, but I can't find any evidence searching either under his name or under "pH analyzer". --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I went through the article and Wikified the style; the article consistently said "Ted" this and "Ted" that, instead of Barben. In my experience, articles that refer to the subject by first name are almost always puff pieces - and have usually been created by the subject or someone close to him/her. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 13 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filan koai[edit]

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

Non-notable expression. Likely made up or neologism. Prod tag was removed. Taking it to AfD. Jarkeld (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:MADEUP. Googling for "Filan koai" yields precisely two results: the article and the discussion to delete it. FYI, here's Google's translation of the article: Filan koai is a greeting that is used in the northern Netherlands. Especially the residents of Northern Virginia and Opsterland use this greeting. The greeting can be used as a greeting meeting but also as a farewell salute. Filan koai speaks as follows: "Filan koooaaaajjj. Currently Filan koai very popular, you'll see that almost everybody uses greeting. This greeting is a bit ko. Pburka (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I am fascinated that Google got "Northern Virginia and Opsterland" from "Opsterland en Smallingerland". Besides that, I thought that perhaps it was Frisian, but I can't find anything to corroborate that either. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do have articles on greetings - Hello comes to mind - but those articles show both long historical use and notability, and (most importantly) are backed by reliable sources. If this term gets to be that widespread and notable, and if sources exist, then perhaps an article is appropriate. But we're not there now. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced neologism in a foreign language. Looks like the creator saved their work in the middle of a sentence and never went back. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:54, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BJ in the Morning[edit]

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

Non-notable, no sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete Article does not assert notability. RadManCF (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every station has a morning show. Nothing special about this one. Pburka (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article makes the program sound like it's been focus grouped and market-speaked to death. No sources and no notability; also no redirect due to low profile of station and host. Nate • (chatter) 00:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Speedy delete per Dravecky's observation below; if he no longer works for the station, then there's no need for this article. Nate • (chatter) 07:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the articles fails to meet the verifiability or notability thresholds. As a bonus, based on the station's website, it appears that "BJ in the Morning" is no longer connected to the station. - Dravecky (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN and no coverage. CTJF83 chat 05:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable local morning show.--MrRadioGuy P T C E 14:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the radio show received some sort of independent news coverage it might be a different story. RFerreira (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable show, not finding coverage RadioFan (talk) 22:55, 13 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taigado[edit]

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

Not very notable, no refs, kind of like a how-to iBentalk/contribs 19:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete pending sources. No Gnews hits, nothing obvious on a Google search. Google confused because this seems to be the name of a fairly well known Japanese artist also (who perhaps deserves an article, but that's another matter). The "Features" section is rather how-to ish, and should be trimmed if this is kept -- indeed it feels like a copy&paste, but google shows no online source. If references showing notability were provided, the "History & Development" section would be a reasonable start, IMO. DES (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to fail WPMA/N. Janggeom (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article shows no notability (see WP:MANOTE). A search for taigado and "michael weaver" (the system's creator) produced 3 hits--2 have no content and the other is the Wikipedia page. Papaursa (talk) 00:29, 12 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism and vegetarianism[edit]

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

Copy Edit of article from www.sikiwiki.org here Sikh-History 19:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and note Vegetarianism in Sikhism already exists, and this may have been an attempt to by pass WP:POV. --Sikh-History 19:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and/or personal essay. JIP | Talk 19:29, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radomir Vasiljevic[edit]

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

What is asserted here might be notable, and is supported by many ghits, but I cannot evaluate them. I declined deletion of the prod in the hope that somebody can , given the wider exposure here. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm also struggling to find evidence of notability. I can't find any details of his supposed awards, but they may simply be from www.ourstage.com ([46]). He appears to be an accomplished guitarist, but I can find no evidence of notability. The low number of Google hits for his name (and zero Google News/Books hits) also does not suggest that much coverage exists, which would certainly be the case if these were meaningful awards.--Michig (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not every professional musician deserves an article. He's just a music worker, and there're millions like him. Yes he works in the music business, but he makes no difference in the music world.--Karljoos (talk) 20:05, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

If there had been any mention of WebJames on the RISC OS article, I would have redirected it there, but as there is not, the consensus is obvious that this article should not exist. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WebJames HTTP Server[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:09, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under CSD criterion A9 (non-admin closure) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Album Hari Raya[edit]

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

Appears to be an unremarkable musical recording where artist's article doesn't exist. ttonyb (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With what you have stated, this meets CSD criterion A9. smithers - talk 17:09, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Higher self[edit]

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

This appears to have started in December 2008 as a personal essay, with no sources at all. It didn't make a lot of sense at the time. After a year of editing it has been slashed down into a couple of sentences which still don't have sources; the topic is far too diffuse and presumably overlaps greatly with Soul, and for that matter Holy Guardian Angel (in which the term seems to be an alternative way of describing the subject). Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. After all the unsourced research synthesis was removed, this article has become a meaninglessly vague substub-style description, which is still unsourced. JIP | Talk 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Slow down please. There's pages of secondary source material here: http://books.google.com/books?id=HrhC0uUclKQC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211#v=onepage&q=&f=false. I've also got secondary sources discussing Monroe's investigations, and seriously doubt there'd be no commentary on related Seth material or on Blavatsky. The articles above barely touch on the higher self. I was planning on building the stub up from sources when time permitted and would like the history to remain intact to assist this. K2709 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it help to userfy the article? That would both preserve the history and give you time to add references and such. There is no deadline, so long as some progress is evident. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not really aware what that entails but it sounds like it has potential... K2709 (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per K2709. No need to userify when there are enough keep votes. Aren't there more academic sources discussing this topic? Logos5557 (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this stub contains no useful information, and the previous longer version is not useful for improvement. If the keep !voters above, or others, want to rewrite the article using WP:RS before the end of this AfD, then great. Otherwise, the article should be deleted so that a new article can be started from a clean slate when someone is willing to put the time in. There is no deadline, but that is no reason to keep a completely useless article around. Verbal chat 09:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm going to vote to keep for a change. This is a fairly widespread concept throughout New Age belief systems, and surely its part in Hinduism, as one of the world's largest religions, makes it worthy of being mentioned? True, it could do with more information, but the article still adds information to the project, even if it isn't much. Macromonkey (talk) 16:31, 11 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G7 delete per post by Bgillesp on my talk page Nancy talk 09:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Machiavelli and The Mayflower[edit]

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

A book with no indication of notability, so does not satisfy WP:BK. A web search turns up this page, the publisher's site and a few places selling it. Also conflict of interest issues, self-published, and largely promotional content. But primarily lack of notability. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of notability, and article created by the author, who has recently decided to start advertising it all across Wikipedia. Tb (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of notability. (GregJackP (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Notability. Although article creator and book author claims notability, he does not provide the evidence, not in the article. Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of notability.--Boson (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning you objections and those of arnoutf, I have some of my own:

  • I have never hidden the fact that I am the author of the book;
  • Notability has been shown
  • The article contains no jargon
  • Language corrected to concentrate on content; there is no (and never has been any) advertisement;

Concerning your actions

  • The request to add links came from someone Wikipedia, not come from me; I followed the instructions and placed links to all relevant material I could find concerning European culture as it relates to religion and to politics; that is a wide area;
  • I am unaware of the maximum number of links expected for a topic: what is the number?
  • This is new work; others say that it is influential and original material;
  • The novelty and the complexity of the work means that the writer is best qualified to launch the article to ensure that the base correctly reflects the work; as time goes on, it will be added to by others;
  • I have posted images to the site on which I hold the copyright a the author; noon else could have posted them, so necessarily I had to author the site
  • The content completes the work of Hofstede or of Trompenaars; there is statistical analysis in the book to prove this, but I will change the language to "builds on";
  • The article seeks not to promote the book, but to illuminate thinking on European cultural typology; the ideas are new and dissociable from the name of the book;

--Bgillesp (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp[reply]

  • comment - thank you for your comments. Unfortunately they do not address the concerns, and so why this AfD was created, that the book is not notable. I would suggest you review the criteria at WP:N and in particular WP:BK for guidelines on what makes a topic in general and a book in particular notable enough for inclusion here, then use that to update the article with reasons for notability, backed up by references to reliable sources.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would be so kind as to specify which words used in the article lead you to the coatrack conclusion. The article informs upon the thesis of the book which is pure Wiki; would you criticise the Weber thesis or Rousseau as being coatrack? I am sure that I could find opinion of living philosophers quoted in Wiki that you would qualify as coatrack. I obviously agree that the COI is not a reason for concern because the author himself or herself is the best person to summarise content at the outset and is the only one who is authorised to introduce his or her own copyrighted material onto the site. Sadly, anyone who works in the field of Social psychology and cultural anthropolgy has not mathematics to prove a position. Thanks for a glimmer of support in this nightmare.--Bgillesp (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp[reply]
I should have thought it was fairly obvious as aside from the first sentence the whole of the rest of the article is your (i.e. the books author) summary of the arguments and conclusions presented in the book. The article is not about the book, it is about the subject of the book, ergo coatrack. Nancy talk 13:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • vallaje writes on discussion page: It is illuminating, interesting and also very challenging to the reader. It works at a number of levels: It satisfied any ignorance of much of the political and historical antecedents of Europe. It challenged some preconceptions about accumulated knowledge and it greatly enriched suspicions that Europeans and their interactions are far more complex than you might think. Does it answer all questions about Europeans? No. But it certainly advances the reader further along the road of understanding. In summary an excellent book that answers many questions and solves many conundrums but actually provokes the reader to ask more questions than they would have done prior to reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC) This comment was moved by me from the article to the discussion page--Bgillesp (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs)
  • Marigi writes on discussion page: What I found interesting about the book was the contrast between Catholic and Calvinist ethics. One has the impression that the chasm between these two Christian religions causes an unsurmountable communication problem in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 13:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting to note the sudden appearance of Tb Gregjade and Boson out of the blue; welcome to the Cabala--212.198.132.96 (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp[reply]
But not nearly as interesting as the sudden appearance of a bunch of newly created single-purpose accounts at Talk:Machiavelli and The Mayflower to wax lyrical about how great the book is. Not sure what your game is Bob but be aware that we can easily check whether all those accounts are editing from the same IP. If they are you it is sockpuppetry, if they are your friends then it is meatpuppetry, neither of which are acceptable. Nancy talk 13:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy,from their comments, at least they have read the book and they are tending to say that it is wrong to remove it, but there is a population of people out there who feel strongly in support but are not Wikipedians; this is the true notablility of the book; it should not lead to class warfare or discrimination, I hope. Also, go ahead and check their origin; is the sudden ganging up of "Wikipedians" sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry? Also how do you class the humiliating, unfair an not-so-faintly libellous words and actions I have had to resist over the past few days?--Bgillesp (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp[reply]
  • vfayad wites on discussion page: I had been conducting acquisition integration for ITT Industries for many years before I retired in 2006. I wish I had read this article / book prior to conducting such acquisition integrations. The cultural differences / barriers between Europeans and Americans and between Europeans is significant. To be able to understand these cultural differences is the first step in developing a plan to conduct a successful integration. vfayad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs)
  • maybe you should check him out, Nancy--Bgillesp (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp[reply]
  • Delete. No sources = no article. Quantpole (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The author of the page (and the book), made a comment over at WP:EAR. Discussion should be here on the deletion request.
    • There he said: I was asked to add links because the article was orphaned, I did so and was told now that there are too many; the article concerns European culture as it relates to religion and to politics; that is a wide area concerning many disciplines. It's not clear who asked him to add links. Perhaps he misunderstood the "orphaned" article notice.
    • He said: This is new work; others say that it is influential and original material and that it should be Wikified. Nobody would prevent him from wikifying his work, but if it is original material, it surely doesn't belong here. New books are generally not notable. Perhaps he has misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia.
    • He said: The novelty and the complexity of the work means that I, as the writer, am the best qualified to launch the article to ensure that the base correctly reflects the work; as time goes on, it will be added to by others; this has been unjustifiably considered a conflict of interest. This is again a clear indication that anything he would write here is prohibited original research, without reliable sources: his protestation that only he is in a position to accurately comment on his work is an admission that there are no reliable third party sources we could rely on for an article.
    • The 2 editors have not read the book and are not qualified to comment on content. One wonders how he knows whether anyone has read his book, except perhaps that it has so few sales he knows every one. Regardless, my objection was based not on the content of the book, but the lack of verifiable third-party secondary sources we could rely on for our article, coupled with the absence of evidence of notability.
    • The article seeks not to promote as I have been accused, but to illuminate thinking on European cultural typology and the ideas are totally new. When an author adds an article for his own book, saying it's because the publisher asked him to, the motives are already clear: promotion. Note that here he describes not the purpose of the book, but the purpose of the article: to illuminate with ideas that are "totally new". Wikipedia is not the place to illuminate people with totally new ideas. It has a different purpose.
    • One of the two editors has placed far lighter and far more meaningless material about a book &and got away with it; the fact that he appeared within a few days of the first appears to contradict the theory that there are no cabals. I don't know whether this is me or someone else. Regardless, what happened in some other case is not relevant to what should happen here. Tb (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the last point I think he is referring to this (his point 8, my reply). --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You won--Bgillesp (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC) bgillesp[reply]

The author of this article blanked the page but it was reverted. Since the author apparently does not want the page to remain with the flags, it would seem that he intended the page to be deleted. A speedy delete based on CSD G7 (author's request) might therefore be appropriate, though it would probably be appropriate to check with the author first, to see if that was what he intended. This would not prevent re-submission of the article if suitable evidence of notability can be provided. --Boson (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about gaming the system. Let's let this discussion continue and reach a result. Otherwise, we may be here needlessly again in a short while. Tb (talk) 08:06, 10 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real Ultimate Power[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for the site provided from independent reliable sources; the nearest this gets is an interview from a college newspaper.

In particular, the book-of-the-site, and the publisher's blurb for that book, are not independent sources, and the "popular culture" section consists many cites which are solely examples of uses of words or phrases similar to those that occur on the site, with the inference that they are somehow therefore a reference to the site itself.

Although the book appears to be a real independently published book, not all published books are notable; I cannot find any reviews devoted to this book in the mainstream press. The Anome (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article in the New York Times, the book sold 35,000 copies by April 2006. Wired picked it as a good Christmas book choice in December 2009 here. I'm not going to vote, because it would amuse me greatly if the article was deleted - it's not very good - but it seems to me that you're going to lose. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - [49], [50], [51], definitely notable. It does seem to be vandalized at this point, though, I'll try to revert to a less vandalized version. Joshua Scott (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-promotion comes to mind on this one. Website is not notable at all, it's not even professional. Looks like a fan-site made by a child if anything. It wouldn't suprise me if the article creator is the 'book' and 'website' creator as well, which would violate Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines Alan - talk 00:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the format, I think the lack of professionalism is intentional - which is funnier, given the content of the book. As for the author's COI, [citation needed]. The original author, lo these many years ago (2004!), was an IP address. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A notable historical internet meme which spawned dozens of Real Ultimate Power websites, credited in the NY Times as the first fratire book, creator interviewed on National Public Radio and University newspapers. These are enough RS sources to pass any notability criteria. I agree that this article was poorly written with a bunch of OR -- so I have taken a good whack at it. Could use some clean-up in the popular culture section, but that is not a reason to delete. — CactusWriter | needles 02:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Considering the site's fame, the sources given are surprisingly weak in establishing notability, but I think this marginally qualifies. Everyking (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flip Out Keep per cleanup work from CactusWriter. The NYT source would do it for me, but there are others as noted above. Concur that the notability is weak, but it's there. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly enough independent sources to demonstrate notability. Edward321 (talk) 02:14, 13 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Power Girl. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galatea (Justice League Unlimited)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this supervillain. Joe Chill (talk) 13:57, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Percy Jackson and the Olympians. JForget 02:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Sea of Monsters[edit]

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Sea of Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of evidence for notability under WP:MOVIE Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 12:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Jumping on the bandwagon. Favonian (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see confirmation in reliable sources that this film has begun principal photography, as required by WP:NFF. Jujutacular T · C 13:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We already deleted on of these by PROD. Obviously does not meet notability. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 14:18, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a fundamentally OR list with arbitrary inclusion criteria, whose sources (when they were in the article) didn't match the claims attributed to them. Jayjg (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of the occult secret societies[edit]

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

Non-notable list, making claims which seem to have a degree of original research to them from a small number of sources. Not entirely convinced the sources are reliable either, and this seems to be slightly unencyclopedic to list "secret occult societies". One source is just a list of "See also" topics, another is a deadlink, another is a forum post for an online game. There is a book reference, but it doesn't seem to really say too much about the topic here.

Prod was contested with a couple of hours to go. Taelus (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Not notable, exhibits a POV and original research, poorly sourced. (I applied the PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: The exchanges shown below only further amplify why this article should be deleted. These arguments will only continue if the article stays. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I disagree with you, but that would be an issue for Wikipedia:Editors for deletion. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Or Wikipedia:Editors to be executed? :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For those of you lacking in a sense of humor, please note the presence of a ":-)" in the remark above. It's a joke, for cryin' out loud! Some of you really need to get over yourselves. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    or Wikipedia:Editors for Wikia ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have cleaned up the list, citing four of the numerous encyclopedias which cover this ground. These citations establish the notability of the topic, as does the existence of the articles for which this list assists navigation. The suggestion that there is a POV or OR here seems too vague - what POV, what OR? The only issue which seemed to require attention was to ensure that we did not have a better list of this sort under a different title to which we might merge this. I've had a good look around and haven't found one so we should build upon this foundation. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The POV comes in the title itself, and the use of the word "occult." I can think of very few people who would put Freemasonry into the category of an occult group. Secret? Pretty much. Occult? That tends to lump it in t=with Jim Jones and such, and expresses a non-neutral POV. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename List of secret societies. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that Category:Secret societies covers this sufficiently. Based on the category, this page would have to contain hundreds of items. If this page and the category aren't identical then we have an issue of trying to keep them in sync; if they are identical then we have duplication.

    And to pile it on, go read Talk:Secret society—it becomes clear that any single list of what is/is not a secret society will be seen as biased and POV. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see WP:CLS which explains that categories are not superior to lists nor do they supersede them. One advantage of lists is that a source may be cited for each entry. This is useful if the classification is debatable, as contended in this case. This indicates that we should, if anything, remove the category. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said one was superior to others. I simply said that, in this particular instance where we've already got a category, what does a list add to WP? Especially one that will clearly be contentious? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you want to find a list of occult secret societies, then this would be a good place to look. Quite helpful for people interested in researching this. You can easily find news stories and books mentioning something as a secret society with occult ceremonies and whatnot, before adding them to the list. Dream Focus 05:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If I wanted to find a list of the rowdiest dive bars, I'm sure List of rowdiest dive bars would be a good place to look too, but that doesn't make the topic encyclopedic. See, I thought the major problem with this article would be defining secret societies as "occult," but Dori makes a good point above that defining any society as "secret" is hard as well. At best, you could identify societies that have been called (by someone, or perhaps even self-described) as occult and secret, but then you would just have List of societies that have been called occult secret societies, which isn't very good material for an article. To go beyond that would require a judgment about whether a society is occult and secret, which we shouldn't be making. This is why List of terrorist organizations redirects to List of designated terrorist organizations—because there are government bodies which can and do designate groups as terrorist. And the governmental designation is actually meaningful; just because a news story or book author calls an organization "terrorist" wouldn't justify creating List of terrorist organizations, any more than similar stories might justify a flat-out title like List of head coaches who should be fired. If we want List of A's that are X, where X is at all controversial, and our reasoning is that some journalists have described them as X, then we should have List of A's that have been described as X. If we wouldn't settle for that, then we shouldn't take the article at all.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • People can and do argue about the classification of anything - is Pluto a planet?; is the EU a country? is rap music or poetry? is a Jaffa cake a biscuit? etc. This does not and should not stop us having lists of these things as such lists provide a service to our readers - helping them navigate to articles of this sort. Any borderline cases may be qualified and annotated accordingly and so the reader is informed rather than being left in the dark. Perfect is the enemy of good and it is our policy to tolerate imperfection. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research (that the mason's are on a list of occult societies is evidence of how badly conceived this is). To support a list like this we'd need some sort of consensus on its inclusion criteria, writ large, from multiple relialbe sources. There is no such consensus criteria -- and the words "occult" and "secret" have slippery meanings, used differently by different people in different contexts.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Occult according to Webster's online dictionary[54], means cut off from view, secret, mysterious. If used with the word "the", then it takes on a different meaning, The Occult meaning "matters regarded as involving the action or influence of supernatural or supernormal powers or some secret knowledge of them —used with the". I have been to a Mason lodge, and on the wall they had staffs with all sorts of symbols on them. I don't believe that occult rituals are as supernatural at they once were, the local group didn't seem to be, but it is still part of the organization. If you read about how their secret ceremonies take place, what religious and mystical oaths they take, and whatnot, it is clearly an occult, by the very definition of the word. As for as the word "secret", obviously, its a group that doesn't publicize all of their beliefs and rituals and activities. I don't think there is any doubt as what that means. Dream Focus 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bali Ultimate's reasoning. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In BG wiki article "live"! Pls i have the article is good! -- Denso 90 vn (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Denso 90 vn (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I think the closer might believe its perfectly acceptable per guideline that the article's author might actually have an opinion and voice it in this discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can discuss inclusion criteria, on the talk page, and what groups qualify and don't. Some of those removed, I believe belong there, but I'll find references before putting them back in. Dream Focus 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know sweet FA about it, whatever funny symbols you saw on the wall of a lodge.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article should vanish in a puff of logic and/or disappear up its own paradox because clearly any organisation mentioned on this list has dismally failed to be any kind of secret.   pablohablo. 23:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bali Ultimate. RFerreira (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nice cleanup and continue further expansion and sourcing that have allowed this list of notable "secret societies" to meet WP:LIST. This a list that should be encouraged for further WP:IMPROVEment and expansion per sources. Considering deletion in the face of WP:ATD does not allow it to meet its WP:POTENTIAL, and diminishes Wikipedia. Comparisons with non-existent lists is interesting, for if those topics had the wide coverage in sources as do these "secret societies", they too might meet inclusion criteria. No matter the topic, it is the coverage of such in numerous reliable sources... books, academia, press... that allow them to meet WP:N. That digression aside, I note that this particular discussion is about a specific list that DOES have sources that meet the WP:GNG and so merit expansion to further improve Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't buy it. The list is indiscriminate and equating them is WP:Synthesis. These orgs are not all that secret, and some don't exist anymore (or were not secret when they did exist). What does "the occult" add to the title? Abductive (reasoning) 07:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indicriminate? Hardly. The article title is quite clear. And it matters not that whether some do not now exist, nor that they may now be less "secret" than they once were. This list would do well to also include the various Hellfire Clubs and The Beggar's Benison, as being "occult" (per Webster, transitive verb: to shut of from view or exposure, not "The Occult") and "secret" (per in not be generally known or accessible to the public) for their times. That they are known and written about NOW is what grants and establishes their notability per WP:LIST. Discussing a different article title does not require deletion of sourced content. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Templars and Hospitallers were exceedingly well known during their existence. Any Christian man could join. The successor to the Hospitallers, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, has a seat at the UN, fer Pete's sake. And the WP:Synthesis] argument is valid. Abductive (reasoning) 08:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah.., so they were "secret" and "occult" from non-Christians? And some are now widely known when they once were not widely known? Your arguments reaffirm that there is historical notability established as well.... and academia is still unsure of the Templars inner workings (shut of from view or exposure) despite the Templar name being widespread. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether the societies still exist or have been transformed is irrelevant because Wikipedia commonly presents a historical view of such topics. The point of the word occult is to indicate that these societies concerned themselves with supernatural or esoteric mysteries. This distinguishes them from secret societies of a revolutionary or criminal nature such as the Black Hand or Mafia. We might generalise the list, as suggested above, to be a list of all secret societies and then the issue is moot. Such development is not assisted by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment'. My problem is not so much with the sourcing but the implied equivalence of these orgs. That's what WP:Synthesis forbids. Abductive (reasoning) 09:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the article title might be better without the debated word (and meaning) of "ocult" in this instance? It does not always mean withcraft and devil worship. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no external source to validate either the defintion of "an occult secret society", nor to provide verifiable source that could justify the inclusion of any of the list's members in accordance with WP:Source list. This list is sloppy revisionism at its worst. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources are easy to find. Search Google news, Google books, and Google scholar for "occult" "secret society" and then the name of the group listed. If credible books, historians, and major news sources refer to the groups on the list as such, then they get added. Dream Focus 11:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But how does one decide which group to search by? (Hint: that's the OR.) Abductive (reasoning) 14:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's absurd. They're currently claiming in the list that skull and bones, the knights templar, the hospitalers and the freemasons are all "occult" societies because they've found an example of this claim being made in writing. Of course, what conspiracy theorist morons write and what academic historians write are not equal, and in all these cases there is no "consensus" that any of these groups were "occult" (and while we can fight out whether various crusader orders were secretly mithraic cults searching for magical power, there is no fight to be had on "secret." There wsa nothing secret about the Templars, it's leadership, or its rank and file). Wikipedia now has an article that is broadcasting "facts" that are in fact lies, and feeding the conspiracy theories of the semi-educated. It's awful.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There seem to be ample good sources for this topic. For example. you dispute the inclusion of the Rosicrucians. Please see Encyclopedia Britannica which states "member of a worldwide brotherhood claiming to possess esoteric wisdom handed down from ancient times. The name derives from the order's symbol, a rose on a cross, which is similar to the family coat of arms of Martin Luther. Rosicrucian teachings are a combination of occultism and other religious beliefs and practices, including Hermeticism, Jewish mysticism, and Christian Gnosticism. The central feature of Rosicrucianism is the belief that its members possess secret wisdom that was handed down to them from ancient times." This respectable source seems quite adequate to support inclusion in this list which is primarily for navigation and does not present any novel thesis. The characterisation of this matter as the work of morons seems to be uncivil ranting based only on opinion, not supported by sources of any sort. The case against is therefore just WP:RUBBISH which is both counterfactual and inadequate to support deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Red herring. My objection to Rosicrucianism was that it's an ideology not a society. But lets focus on the patent nonesense, shall we: Templars, Hospitalers, Skull and Bones, Freemasons.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this discriminate example of unoriginal research has a neutral point of view while avoiding synthesizing containing information in a reference section that is verfiable through numerous reliable sources. No actual reason for deletion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT just does not cut it. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article like this is quite libelous, not are we only claiming these group are secretive, but into the occult as well. And also appears to be a collaborative synthesis. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per cleanup efforts and reliable sources. Every word appears referenced now. I would have no problem renaming the page to List of secret societies as per the suggestions above. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing administrator this article has gone through significant improvements since it was first put up for deletion.[55] The 8 references added cite books, 6 of the references cite encyclopedias. Thank you. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing administrator it is still fallacious and wrong in almost every respect -- in fact more wrong information has been added, making it far worse and illustrating why this list should not be kept. The masons and skull and bones are not "occult" (and one can argue if the masons are truly a "Secret society" -- S&B is about as secret as any fraternity.). The Templars and Hospitalers were not "secret" in any way, and the generally accepted scholarship is that they weren't "occult." That there have been claims of "occult" involvement for these groups at various times is true, and these fringe theories are discussed in their articles. But to create such a list and to include a group is to claim that something is an established fact when, in fact, the academic consensus is that the opposite is the case.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin It can be seen from this discussion, and the battlefield mentality being created aside, that it has devolved into arguments based upon perceived definitions of the word "occult". Though intended herein as the transitive verb meaning "shut off from view or exposure", editors confuse it with its usage as a noun with a supernatural connotation. It has been suggested and ignored many times on this page that the word "occult" be removed from the article title so that the article might then better reflect a listing of notable societies whose inner workings are generally "shut off from view or exposure". There's no need to continue bickering over the meanng of a word when the word itself need not be used. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per lack of objective inclusion criteria. Yilloslime TC 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only socities. Only secret socities. Only secret socities allegedly interested in the occult. Only secret socities allegedly interested in the occult as asserted by published books is a pretty objective inclusion criteria. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are books that say jews belong to a secret society interested in the occult. Ditto for Muslims. Ditto for books on the british royal family, etc, etc. Shall we include them all? There are books that say there's a secret cabal of satan worshipers at the heart of the United Nations. In your world, if it's published it's verified, so shall we put all them in?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think anyone would call a billion people (Muslims) a secret society. We can use common sense here. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- sourcing is questionable, and a category would be better suited for this -- in fact, don't the categories in question already exist? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. Knights Hospitaller and Teutonic Knights are not secret or occult, they are catholic chivalric orders. Article is fringe.--Yopie (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with all the deletion reasoning so far, but there's also a real problem here in the use of "occult" - it really means "hidden" (as was noted), but has come to mean "Satanic" or "evil" depending on context. When in its proper usage, everything is "occult", as there is no organization in the world that is fully public - go ask your local supermarket for their sales figures for the month, or ask if you can go to the board meeting at your local bank, and see what happens. To do anything else by way of the other definition is POV, because it require a subjective value judgment that seems to be driven more by conspiracy theory and fanciful thinking than anything else. MSJapan (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objective reality of available sources: This article could reasonably be reworked to something on Occult secret societies per WP:PRESERVE. Such mainstream sources as the For Dummies series discusses the specific subject of occult secret societies in full chapter format. Moreover, published encyclopedias use that specific phrase as well. We can debate what should and should not be included in such a list, but no one can deny that the subject of "occult secret socities" has been covered in reliable mainstream sources and is encyclopedic per the sources available. What that means is because we have a legitimate basis for an article and that no irrefutable reason for outright deleting exists, the next step is to consider whether or not to merge/rename to List of secret socities and/or Occult secret socities? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quoting from the source you so kindly provide above: "...modern Freemasonry was developed by Englightenment thinkers, who specifically rejected superstition and the occult -- which is what makes allegations that Freemasonry is occult somewhat comical."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We could always retitle as "alleged occult secret socities" or in a larger article on the subject, i.e. Occult secret socities, include a section on ones mistakenly associated with the occult as verified in such reliable sources as the one cited above. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - "alleged" is another subjective judgment (and thus POV), as is "mistakenly". As a matter of fact, it is debatable as to whether any organization that files tax forms is really a "secret society." There is simply no way to address the inability to make an objective statement in favor of a secret society being such, because the necessity of coverage wouldn't make it a secret anymore. MSJapan (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If we have a published book that makes a claim or cites a claim made by another, it is not subjective on our part to acknowledge that that source makes such a claim. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • How about List of people alleged to be assholes? I can find lots of citations from books to populate such a list (or a category, or we could double our fun and have both).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per Bali, per Ryan, Pablo and all the other reasonable people. And specifically contra all those people who [removed]. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed part of your comment per WP:RPA. The civil summary is "those people who are inclusionists". --Enric Naval (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete... Someone is citing sources without actually reading them. I checked several of the cited sources (especially the ones on the various medieval orders) and they did not even come close to supporting inclusion in this list. I have cut those sources. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Deeply unsourced and POV. Certainly some groups (Templers, Illuminati, the Tuffty Club) have been accused of being secret societies (and some are, at least in terms of things like membership), some have been accused of having occult connections. But there is no clear evidanace that they are Occult secret societies (after all be infernace if they are secret so are thier doctorins). I also notice that the lead does not say that to be included they have to have known to have, or reported to have, occult connections.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is only a recent article, has one similar been created before? I would have thought such an article would have been an early choice. I have not looked into the subject but would have thought it a feasible one - Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn springs to mind. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sources are junk, list inherently POV, categories can be used without needing to maintain a separate page. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is occult is inherently POV. Besides, the list has been hacked down to one entry precisely because of that. Pcap ping 21:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I think it's been shown beyond doubt that this list is inherently unable to be treated in a neutral synthesis-free manner. Reyk YO! 22:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inherently POV. We seem to have managed to allow an awful lot of lists which exist to push a certain POV. If there is any debate over whether something meets the list criteria, particularly (though not exclusively) when it could be seen as negative, it should not be included. If there is debate about whether a certain organisation is occult or not than that can be covered on the articles page (provided we give appropriate weight to the subject etc etc). What we should not have is a list acting as a 'street of shame'. Quantpole (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per crowd. Note that the current list has only one entry, and it's a highly questionable one. PhGustaf (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per ShadowRange. ViridaeTalk 01:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whatever this article originally looked like, its a joke at this point. One listing with a "citation needed" and then a "see also" link? The concept is one on which I could see a worthwhile article being created, but it seems to be among that category of articles that wikipedia editors will never agree upon (some will find it useful, or at least unoffensive, others will believe it evil to their very core) and could only be written by an individual (and thus not here). Such an article could only exist if it collates a list of groups, each of which have individual articles that each have citations that would define them sufficiently as an occult secret society to justify their inclusion.--Milowent (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people seem to be attacking the Article Rescue Squadron, without any legitimate reason. A handful of people that are active in it, tried to help an article, seeking out references for things listed in it, and discussing things as is appropriate. I did find notable references for Skull and Bones, the only thing I added to the list, and at present the only thing currently on the list. The Templar knights apparently had all the occult things accredited to them by their enemies, as an excuse to be rid of them, and take their wealth. Everything else that was on the list, is found in many books, but its debatable which are credible and which are not. There are many occult secret societies out there, Google news search showing plenty of hits for "occult" and "secret societies" [56], most of them nameless brainwashing groups operating in various nations, and only mentioned when a notable military figure uses it for his own gain. Dream Focus 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing you added to the list was Skull and Bones, eh. Hmmm. [57]. There's a word for what you just did, it's on the tip of my tongue...Bali ultimate (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I added one new thing, is what I meant. Yes, I restored something originally, since it had references. There was discussion about how valid those encyclopedias were. I didn't try to revert it again, not sure what makes an encyclopedia notable or not, there plenty of references, but I not able to find one I'm certain is valid, for anything other than for Skull and Bones. Dream Focus 20:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The main reference for most of the things previously listed, was a publication found to have made some mistakes, the authors retracting what they said about one church, and there lawsuits against them in the news. [58] A simple enough mistake. Dream Focus 20:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the 'list' is currently apparently empty, I can't help wondering if the societies in the list are so occult (= hidden} and secret that they are concealing themselves from the view of us mere non-illuminated nor elucidated (nor even hermetic) peasants. If this is the case, there is probably little we can do against such might and power. If, on the other hand, they have merely been removed for assorted reasons, then there is little point in the list existing. Come to think of it, that applies in the first case too, doesn't it? Peridon (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah... it is more down to earth than that... the societies were removed because there were no reliable sources that backed inclusion in the list. Blueboar (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only because the article (as of now) is completely empty. Warrah (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I had to get a screengrab of that for future researchers.[59]--Milowent (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is secret. And occult. Reminds me of List of air guitars.   pablohablo. 21:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE... yeah... the article has undergone a lot of WP:HANDLE editing since this AfD was filed... the closing admin will have to go back through the article history to see what was listed and why it was removed. 15:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Ruddick[edit]

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

Previously PRODed article, contested by user saying; "Deletion removed as he has played at the highest amateur level of the sport and has played for a club (Brentford) at a fully professional level". Ruddick never made an appearance for Brentford and has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to no significant media coverage. --Jimbo[online] 10:54, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Burgert[edit]

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

While his murder is tragic, is he a significant enough figure to have an entry on Wikipedia? Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL - I don't know that this is intended as a memorial, but that's about the only purpose it can serve. Sadly, being a cop in much of the world is a very dangerous occupation. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:BIO1E. Victim of a non-notable crime. Nothing beyond routine press coverage for it. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tragic, but no indication of being a notable tragedy
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 15:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lazer's Interactive Symbolic Assembler[edit]

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

This is a 6502 assembler for Apple II. I can't find any independent coverage. There's a book [60] from the author, but it has no ISBN, and it appears a self-published technical manual (publisher is Lazerware). Pcap ping 10:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Note that this assembler for the Apple 2 was more commonly known as the "LISA assembler" or just "LISA". This may make sorting through sources difficult, as there are assemblers for other platforms that are also known as LISA. And Apple had an early computer by that name, Apple Lisa. This site has some more background and information that could be used as a jumping off point for research. Note that this site itself does not qualify as a reliable source. There are mentions of it in other books suach as [61], [62], and [63]. But as these are snippets from Google Books, it is unclear the degree of coverage these represent. As somebody who owned and programmed on an Apple 2 computer, my personal recollection was that this was a significant product for the Apple 2, and I even own a copy the Randy Hyde book "How to Program the Apple II using 6502 Assembly Language". However, I do understand that personal recollections are not reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of those books has what looks like a review-type comparison table of Apple II assemblers. I'm leaning towards withdrawing this, but I'll leave it open for a little longer; perhaps better sources will be found that way. Pcap ping 15:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom withdrawn. This book is entirely independent from the author of the assembler. Pcap ping 15:28, 7 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.

This software has been the most widely-used assembler for Apple ][. -- Toytoy (talk)

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

The result was keep. JForget 02:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Horowitz - The Complete Original Jacket Collection[edit]

Vladimir Horowitz - The Complete Original Jacket Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nom.rationale:: Delete. Notability. Many of the recordings of this outstanding performer are notable on their own (e.g. his concerts in Moscow after years of living in the States, see Vladimir Horowitz discography) but the relevance of this compilation is not established. Yes, the box does include all the recordings by Vladimir Horowitz but it is not a notable product, although it does include notable recordings. Karljoos (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this deletion is unfair as the article is not even complete yet. Please wait and decide when the ((underconstruction)) tag has been removed--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 11:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I added this the tag was not there. Also, I think the topic does not deserve an article.--Karljoos (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though I'd like to see better sourcing, the release has notability (being a major-label release from a VERY notable artist) and it does link to a professional review (from The Guardian). I'll take the above user at their word that this is indeed being actively improved. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This compilation contains the bulk of Horowitz's recordings in best sound. The majority of Horowitz's 25 Grammys were for the albums which this collection reproduces. There are numerous articles on albums by other artists and groups, including compilation albums that do not have the breadth of material on this set -- see The Beatles for notable examples. Deletion of this article would consititute that Classical music is somehow less "noteworthy" than popular music. I will assist in adding information about this album, including listing the content of all 70 CDs.THD3 (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think it would be better to have individual articles about the most important recordings included in this compilation?--Karljoos (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think we should have both the most important individual recordings (although it may be difficult to get consensus on what are VH's most important recordings) and this compilation. See The_Capitol_Albums,_Volume_1 for an example of a compilation album.THD3 (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This page has not had a chance to develop--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am a fan of Horowitz, and would love to have this collection, but the notability is in the individual recordings, not in the compilation. There should be an articles about some of the recording and DVD reles of Horowitz; this is just a commercial "packcage".--Karljoos (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has to one of Horowitz's most "notable" releases and is far more than a "commercial package". Etincelles (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Normally, I would vote Delete on such a poor article with little notability shown, but it is tagged with under expansion and should be given the chance since it is properly tagged (a rarity on here these days. Can always be submitted again for AFD if not expanded in a rational amount of time Alan - talk 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have found that a few committed editors have been doing a huge amount of work on the discography of Vladimir Horowitz. This takes time and they are using the "under construction" tag appropriately. Give this article some time and discuss the collection's notability after the original editors have completed their task. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I placed the deletion proposal there was no WIP-tag and I don't think that more work will help the notability of this article.--Karljoos (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:NALBUMS, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." This is an officially released album on a major label by a notable musician, and I see no compelling reason to consider this official album of notable recordings non-notable. Rlendog (talk) 20:00, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator Niteshift36 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dwarves Must Die[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. No evidence that it charted anywhere found at Allmusic or Billboard. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. The sole source used by the article is a one paragraph review. 4 articles link to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Dwarves are notable, and so is the album per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Reviews, etc here. Lugnuts (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key word is "may". Look at the rest of NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.". The article is a single paragraph and a track listing. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally one that is longer than a single paragraph. Whether is is enough remains to be seen. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also this article from The Age.--Michig (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should use that for the Dwarves article, it helps establish their notability. But a single sentence mention of the album isn't going to look too significant to many people. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? The whole article is about The Dwarves Must Die.--Michig (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of paragraph 2 and most of paragraph 3 is about the album. There rest doesn't look like it. Even if it all is, the 3.5 paragraphs is there because they were performing in a local bar a year after the album came out. It's coverage about the band performing locally so they talked about the last album. Either way, we'll see if that saves it.Niteshift36 (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I offered to Michig to withdraw the AfD if he wanted to redirect. He refused. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still have some work to do on this one by adding a critical reception section. There's no case that I can see to redirect.--Michig (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - like everyone else I am copying and pasting my vote for all of the AfD's of the Dwarves albums, except for the quickie compilations. The nominator's reasons for the AfD's are roughly the same, everyone else's comments and votes are roughly the same. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The album appears to have received significant coverage from multiple sources (including Allmusic - I disagree with the nominator about the significance of the album's allmusic coverage.) Rlendog (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage for this album in the article's three current references (Allmusic, Pitchfork, The Age) is sufficient in my view to satisfy WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow Talk 06:00, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator Niteshift36 (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come Clean (Dwarves album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. No evidence that is charted at Allmusic or Billboard. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Sole source used for the article is a one paragraph review. Only 3 articles link to it Niteshift36 (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • What did you do regarding WP:BEFORE? You appear to have nominated several articles for deletion in a rather short space of time.--Michig (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I did make several in a short period of time. I had them all lined up. I did my checks before I started the nominations. Of course checking Allmusic and Billboard is a breeze. You just look at the band and find out that they've never had anything chart. Nothing. That took a whole 2 minutes and covered every album they've ever done. Instead of trying to insinuate things about me, why not concern yourself with finding the significant coverage you keep saying you have for these noms. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I simply asked, as you didn't mention any searches in the nomination. Calm down. Allmusic and Billboard are not the only sources available.--Michig (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor did I say those were the only sources I checked. However, they are darn good for finding out if this band ever charted in the US. And they haven't. Your insinuation was clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Dwarves are notable, and so is the album per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Reviews, etc here. Lugnuts (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key word is "may". Look at the rest of NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.". The article is a single sentence and a track listing. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One source you use is one page, yet that source is used in at least 7 different articles. How significant can the coverage of each album be if at least 7 of them are on the same page? Can't be that in depth. The same sources keep popping up. Single paragraph reviews at Allmusic, the same page in a book for 7 different albums, when no other coverage is found Pitchfork did a review. If they are so notable, why is there so little variety in the sources over so many albums? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all get the idea that you're in favour of deletion, thanks.--Michig (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I think we all get the idea that you want to keep it no matter how many trivial mentions it takes. But it hasn't stopped you from continuing to respond either. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - like everyone else I am copying and pasting my vote for all of the AfD's of the Dwarves albums, except for the quickie compilations. The nominator's reasons for the AfD's are roughly the same, everyone else's comments and votes are roughly the same. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The album appears to have received significant coverage from multiple sources. Rlendog (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage for this album in the sources presented is enough in my view to satisfy WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow Talk 06:03, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dwarves (band). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lick It (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable compilation album that never charted according to Allmusic and Billboard, filled entirely with songs that never charted. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Article tagged as an orphan for a year. The only sources cited are the bands website and Amazon.com Niteshift36 (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Horror Stories is in AfD. Why not redirect it to the Dwarves main article? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete, nothing really notable enough for it's own article (it's nothing but a tracklisting).. fails article quality guidelines as well Alan - talk 18:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC
  • Merge to the "History" section of The Dwarves. This album appears to be one of those quickie compilations with little interest for fans and collectors so it probably does not merit its own article. The existence of the compilation can be mentioned as an item of interest in the history of the band. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to Dwarves (band) or Horror Stories (album) (if the latter survives AfD). For the reasons listed in the nom, although I believe those support redirection or merge rather than deletion. Rlendog (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Horror Stories (album) per Michig. I can not find significant coverage for this compilation, and so a separate article is not warranted in this case; does not meet WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow Talk 06:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no issue with a merge and redirect, but why to another album? Shouldn't it go to the bands article, which is where their discography is? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, what I would support adding to Horror Stories (album) is the opening paragraph of the Lick It article (not the tracklisting), provided it can be verified. It appears that Horror Stories was included virtually in its entirely on the Lick It compilation, so having that info added there seems like a good fit. That said, I have no objection to merging this with the band's article, if that's what the consensus decides.  Gongshow Talk 07:35, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets Ain't Got No Name, Vol. 1[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bullets Ain't Got No Name, Vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was PROD'd and seconded. Contested by the author. Album fails WP:NALBUMS. No evidence it charted found at Allmusic or Billboard. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Simply another non-notable mixtape. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:12, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. NW (Talk) 22:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Princess Diaries 3: The Royal Wedding[edit]

The Princess Diaries 3: The Royal Wedding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a hoax. Nothing on IMDB, Google News, or Google Search CTJF83 chat 08:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —  Cargoking  talk  15:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm always suspicious of films which proclaim it should have been released but was then delayed. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A sequel to a film from six years ago? This does not make sense, especially since Anne Hathaway's choice in roles has drawn away from her early Disney image by a long shot (along with...uh, her age). You're not going to convince me they're going to convince a big-ticket 28 year-old star to reprise the 17 year-old role that brought her to prominence at this point, and not for anything under $25 million. Nate • (chatter) 00:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless reliable third party sources can be found to show that the film has begun principal photography, the film fails WP:NFF and does not deserve its own article just yet. No prejudice towards recreation should the film eventually meet the specified requirements. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Slight case of ignoring the rules here and jumping the gun (and a copy and paste of the reason I just used at another AFD) as I have filed a report at WP:SPI, but this is so clearly an Alexcas11 (talk · contribs) creation in the inimitable Alexcas11 style that there is probably nothing that can be saved here. Occasionally he creates articles based on real projects, but the lack of sources would tend to suggest this isn't one of them. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Article creator was confirmed as Alexcas11 sock. If a sequel is made, then of course an article can be created, but this particular article is a fantasy/hoax, FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete. An unreferenced and unverifiable future film. It seems to be a hoax. Laurinavicius (talk) 16:11, 12 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dwarves Are Young and Good Looking[edit]

The Dwarves Are Young and Good Looking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Album fails WP:NALBUMS. No evidence it ever charted found at Allmusic or Billboard. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. The article cites a one paragraph review as its only source. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Dwarves are notable, and so is the album per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Reviews, etc here. Lugnuts (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key word is "may". Look at the rest of NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.". The article is a single sentence and a track listing. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the album is that notable, where is the significant coverage of it. One source you use is one page, yet that source is used in at least 7 different articles. How significant can the coverage of each album be if at least 7 of them are on the same page? Can't be that in depth. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nonconstructive nitpicking over meaning of the term "Significant." I repeat my vote and comment from this discussion. Also, since my copy-and-paste votes are getting repetitive, allow me to add that Niteshift36 has inadvertently encouraged the improvement of the articles for several albums by the Dwarves. Kudos for adding to the value of WP, but that could have been accomplished in a way more befitting of our good faith principles. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the word significant was placed in the criteria for a reason. If you don't like it being there, work to change it. But actually following the criteria isn't "nitpicking". But your repeated accusation of "nitpicking" is bordering on harassment. One paragraph mentions and being lumped in with 6-7 other albums on the same page isn't significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift and I have gotten into an argument and are accusing each other of acting in bad faith. I retract my statement to that effect (see strikethrough above) and wish to draw attention only to my votes for each of the AfD's in question. These debates are supposed to be about the articles themselves, and I apologize to the community for my part in the ugliness that is starting to develop. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The album appears to have received significant coverage from multiple sources (including Allmusic - I disagree with the nominator about the significance of the album's allmusic coverage.) Rlendog (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage in multiple sources; meets WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow Talk 06:18, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. any merge suggestion can be discussed in the talk page of the article JForget 02:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horror Stories (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. No evidence that it ever charted at Allmusic or Billboard. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Tagged as an orphan. Article cites no sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Dwarves are notable, and so is the album per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Reviews, etc here. Lugnuts (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key word is "may". Look at the rest of NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.". The article is a single sentence and a track listing. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving an album that has no significant coverage is what doesn't make sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your repeated characterization of it as nitpicking doesn't change the fact that the criteria uses the word significant for a reason. If you don't like it, get it changed. Until then, just complaining about it being applied isn't constructive either. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that isn't constructive is resorting to a shot on my user page when what we're debating is the merit of individual album articles (or in this case, many albums by the same band). My votes are not changing, and I've described why. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A shot? You cut and pasted the same accusation of bad faith over numerous AfD's. I took my comments about the lack of good faith to your talk page rather than here. How is that less constructive? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage in multiple sources; satisfies WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow Talk 06:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to Dwarves (band). Although I have disagreed with the nominator about the significance of the allmusic coverage of Dwarves albums, I agree in this case, since the allmusic review is more about the band with only a pssing reference to the album in question. The other sources listed in the article do not appear to provide very significant coverage either, saying little more than that this was the band's 1st album. Rlendog (talk) 20:20, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator Niteshift36 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarfix[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. No evidence that the album ever charted at Allmusic or Billboard. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Band is of questionable notability. Simply can't find anything notable about this album. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Dwarves are notable, and so is the album per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Reviews, etc here. Lugnuts (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key word is "may". Look at the rest of NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.". The article is a single sentence and a track listing. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So where is the coverage? One source you use is one page, yet that source is used in at least 7 different articles. How significant can the coverage of each album be if at least 7 of them are on the same page? Can't be that in depth. And do one paragraph reviews really even count as significant coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I repeat, the word significant was placed in the criteria for a reason. If you don't like it, get it changed. But until then, it is there and following the criteria isn't "nitpicking". Niteshift36 (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Assuming good faith that there is significant coverage in the offline newspaper articles. Those, along with the Allmusic review, are enough to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Kudos to Michig and others who have helped expand these Dwarves articles.  Gongshow Talk 06:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't we supposed to cite those offline sources? What happened to WP:V? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that page numbers would be appropriate in those instances.  Gongshow Talk 07:19, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long Way to Happy[edit]

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

unnotable unreferenced unreleased track Ejfetters (talk) 07:41, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator Niteshift36 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Heaven for Little Girls (album)[edit]

Thank Heaven for Little Girls (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD placed by another editor. Fails WP:NALBUMS. No evidence that the album ever charted at Allmusic or Billboard. Band is of questionable notability. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Article only cites a couple of short reviews (one is only one paragraph) Niteshift36 (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The notability of the band is not questionable at all, and this album has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is all that significant coverage? All I'm seeing is short reviews. And yes, the band is questionable. They are a bunch of guys who never charted anything. They got some coverage because they did stuff like cut themselves. They might end up in an AfD soon.Niteshift36 (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be wasting yours and everyone else's time if you brought that to AFD.--Michig (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about if we stay on this for now. Where is the significant coverage from multiple sources? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews from Allmusic and Q already in the article, and there's also a review from Maximumrocknroll, partially viewable on Google Books. That's three reviews, all good sources, which is plenty.--Michig (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned the first two in the nom. The review at Allmusic is a single paragraph. Do you honestly think one paragraph is significant? The other review isn't viewable. The one you just linked here is an entry in a magazine for a short review. These are trivial. Where is the significant coverage you said exists? Niteshift36 (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 'other review' is a substantial review in a respected print magazine. If it isn't viewable online that makes no difference. These are all non-trivial.--Michig (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A one paragraph review is not significant. You can make that claim all day, but I don't think it's going to fly. The one you linked above is an equally short one. The only one we can't see is the one you claim is "substantial". Then again, you claim a single paragraph is significant, so I have to wonder what you'd consider substantial. Is that a paragraph and a half? Niteshift36 (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One source you use is one page, yet that source is used in at least 7 different articles. How significant can the coverage of each album be if at least 7 of them are on the same page? Can't be that in depth. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Dwarves are notable, and so is the album per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Reviews, etc here. Lugnuts (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key word is "may". Look at the rest of NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.". The article is a single sentence and a track listing. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it needs expanding with the available sources, not deleting.--Michig (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just putting more stuff in won't make it notable. A bunch of trivial mentions and one-two paragraph reviews aren't significant coverage. I offered you an alternative, but you don't seem interested. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Friendly Advice - band and album are plenty notable. Before this process was started the article certainly needed improvement, but that is not automatically a reason to propose deletion. Instead we should recommend that the WP community improve the article through the use of stub tags and edit tags. That is exactly what is happening now, thanks to Michig's additions to the article. Also, Niteshift36 is distorting this debate by nitpicking on the definition of "significant" as if this notion has never been discussed anywhere else in WP ever before. Such arguments are not very instructive in isolation. If anyone truly believes that the album article should be deleted because of the conceptions of "significant" in the above debate, you should start the AfD process for hundreds if not thousands of articles. Or, you could call for their improvement as passionately as Niteshift36 is calling for this one's deletion. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no distortion and your "friendly advice" is more an accusation of bad faith than friendly. The word significant was placed in the criteria for a reason, to exclude trivial mentions. If you don't like that criteria, then start a RfC to change it. A single paragraph review isn't significant. Having the album mentioned with at least 6 other albums on the same page of a book entry isn't significant. There is a pattern here. The same couple of sources being used over and over. That shows more of a lack of notability. The same couple of places paid attention. All the rest ignored them. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I was not accusing Niteshift36 in particular, but I admit it probably looks that way. Instead I was commenting on a pattern in these discussions of demanding the deletion of an article that really just needs improvement, then refusing to admit that the AfD has resulted in the types of improvement that are supposed to be the desired outcome of the community editing process. Many people do this, and it would be nice to see someone say simply "oops, I thought the article should be deleted but it really just needed improvement, thanks to everyone for their contributions." I have even done that myself here. And I still disagree with the stiff and unyielding definition of "significant" and recommend flexibility in this type of discussion. I have voted accordingly, and so has everyone else. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. I guess I was confused when you said "Niteshift36 is distorting this debate by nitpicking...". Somehow I took that to mean that you were talking about me distorting and nitpicking. So instead of "distoring" and "nitpicking", I am "stiff and unyielding". Glad I got the upgrade.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The band seems to be notable and this seems to be an official release on a notable label. The album appears to have received significant coverage from multiple sources (including Allmusic - I disagree with the nominator about the significance of that one). Rlendog (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There appears to be significant coverage for this in multiple sources, including offline reviews; meets WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow Talk 06:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep basically what Rlendog said. Hekerui (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I started this page a while ago and I'm now visiting it again for the first and am pleased by how it's grown from others' contributions. In my opinion, that fact alone merits keeping the article. There seem to be 2 sides making subjective and somewhat-nonresponsive assertions that boil down to different standards of significance. There are no tangible and established standards for significance, as such merely pointing out that something is not significant has little substantive value, particularly when there exists an opposition who is willing to assert that it is significant. More reviews were asked for, and more reviews were given. These reviews were impugned, but without any standard aside from the impugner's own subjective ideas. How many paragraphs does a review need to be to be considered significant? While speculating on the intent of the framers of the Notability Guidelines is dicey, I agree that the word significant was included to stem a mass of articles no one cares about. However, I think more than that it was picked because it is intrinsically subjective and thus requires debate and case-by-case application. On the side of inclusion there are arguments and evidence given that are specific to the article in question (reviews). The advocates of deletion, however, are applying a generic semantic distinction which undercuts the power of case-by-case application of the guidelines. In this case, it seems that there is more support for inclusion. So yeah, keep it. Jimmuhk (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"[P]leased by how it's grown"? I should think so. [64] Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:05, 10 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Guts & Pussy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. No record of ever charting found at Allmusic or Billboard. Apparent lack of signifcant coverage by reliable sources. Minor one paragraph mention in one source and a short 1 paragraph review in another. Has been tagged for improvement since 2008 Niteshift36 (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable album by notable band that has received significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the significant coverage? It's sure not in the article. The notability of the band is debateable.Niteshift36 (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Dwarves are notable, and so is the album per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Reviews, etc here. Article has also got refs. The fact that it's been tagged since 2008 means nothing when showing notability. Lugnuts (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it has refs. A single paragraph from Allmusic, a single paragraph from Trouser Press, an interview in OC Weekly where the album is mentioned once, fungusboy.net and a mention in a book.5 trivial mentions don't make significant coverage. One source you use is one page, yet that source is used in at least 7 different articles. How significant can the coverage of each album be if at least 7 of them are on the same page? Can't be that in depth. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word significant is in the criteria for a reason. Otherwise is would just say coverage. A single paragraph is not significant coverage. It's trivial. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Allmusic and Trouser Press have more than passing mentions of this album, and here's more coverage at Pitchfork, which I added to the article (I am also interested if anyone has access to the Spin piece that rated this as the "most offensive cover" of all time, noted already in the article and also here); WP:NALBUMS appears to be met.  Gongshow Talk 06:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've all seen the Allmusic review. It is a paragraph. No news there. But I would like to point out that the other so-called significant coverage, the Great Indie Discography is viewable on Google books and the coverage of the albums is essentially a list. Little more than titles and dates about the albums. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point concerning the Great Indie Discography; indeed, I did not regard that listing as significant coverage.  Gongshow Talk 07:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the content of this book on Google Books, but I have a copy of it. As well as a discography listing, it also has bios of each band/artist, which in this case includes: "The DWARVES career reaching a climax of sorts with their outrageously titled 'Sub Pop' debut, 'BLOOD GUTS & PUSSY' (1990) - featuring an equally disgusting sleeve pic that again found them coming under severe flak from feminists." I'm not claiming this source as significant coverage of the album - I added it to the article for purposes of verifiability, not notability, and have never claimed otherwise.--Michig (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see any content - maybe it's only shown in some countries.--Michig (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Erring on the side of inclusion, there appears to be multiple agencies providing coverage of this album and band, and even if the coverage is not significant by some standards it is at least ample. RFerreira (talk) 00:13, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Campaign Cartographer. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Designer 3[edit]

Dungeon Designer 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Limited independent coverage for this software Freikorp (talk) 07:26, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WizeHive[edit]

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

This software-as-service website is covered only in two brief blog posts. While they are on notable blogs, one of the posts just points to the other. Although they are linked as "reviews" in the article, they don't really rise to that level. WP:NOT#NEWS about startups. Pcap ping 07:12, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James and Blackburn[edit]

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

Declined speedy, fails WP:BAND. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7, I don't see anything in here other than "unique for their style and dance moves while on stage" which is far too vague to count for anything. If not speedy, then simply delete for lack of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't speedy this when I saw it, because it does contain a few reviews. But they seem to be purely local in scope, and didn't indicate any particular notability to me. My attempt to discuss that on the talk page was a dead end, which makes me suspect that the author understands that the band doesn't meet the criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had dropped a speedy tag on this, as it was lacking citations at the time. Still, even with citations, it seems to fail notability (fails criteria 1-12 as it stands right now). I can't confirm this, but I suspect there may also be a conflict of interest on the part of the author. My suspicion is based on this being the user's first page on Wikipedia, and the passion with which the author has defended the article seems to suggest the author may have a close affiliation with the subject of the article. It feels like the author is trying to get out information about their band with reckless disregard for Wikipedia's standards (also Commons standards regarding no copyright rationale on the picture).GnoworTalk2Medid wha? 17:24, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every channel[edit]

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

Nonsense. A prod tag was removed by the original editor. Woogee (talk) 06:08, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep, nom withdrawn . I take this edit and particularly this edit as a withdrawal. Note to nominators, the usual way to withdraw a nomination is to add a comment "Nomination withdrawn" or words to that effect, sometimes striking the original nomination statement, and sometimes giving the reason for the withdrawal. Then the AfD is closed and archived normally. This can be relevant if the page is later re-nominated for AfD. Also, it would be helpful if the reference cited in this discussion were added to the article. DES (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Cape[edit]

This cape does not exist. The northernmost cape called Cape Molotov (Russian: мыс Молотова) [66]. Advisorspeak en-2 05:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. You may have a naming issue, but that's not a reason to delete nor is it for discussion at AfD. Also, allow me to quote from William James Mills, Exploring Polar Frontiers: A Historical Encyclopedia, Vol. 2: "Ushakov and his two companions explored the west coast of the large central island—October Revolution—before crossing a strait to Komsomolets Island and sledging to the northernmost point of the archipelago. This is now known as Arctic Cape, though Ushakov originally named it for the later disgraced politician Vyechyslav Molotov."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I was typing the above reply, the nominator tagged this page db-author. Since there's now substantial comment by another author (sorry) I've removed the speedy deletion tag, but suggest speedy close as a withdrawn nomination.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This project page was blanked, tagged for deletion, and then deleted for having no content, but I asked the deleting admin to restore it because I feel this AfD should be closed properly. The nomination has clearly been withdrawn, but for reasons including the possibility of a subsequent deletion nomination of the article it's not right to simply vanish the AfD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:22, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Junya Kondō[edit]

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

BLP lacks reliable sources demonstrating notability. Sending to AfD after it was mistakenly PROD'ed a second time. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It was me who prodded it the first time and I still think I was right to do so. I'm willing to believe that this person is notable. So persuade me. But unless the article gets some changes, I'll return here with a delete "!vote". -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was my mistake to PROD it a second time, so apologies for that, but I found no significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some material from the Japanese Wikipedia. There is some media coverage of him, so that isn't a BLP1E for the Google Street View thing. Japanese-language sources can be read using http://translate.google.com — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Michig. I am perplexed as to why we are even mentioning that this person "reported that he was able to recognize a friend in a Google Street View image in Japan". As I understand it the Japanese Wikipedia has lower standards than ours, or at least their own share of problems, and we should not necessarily be importing text from their encyclopedia to ours. RFerreira (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone who recognized a friend on Google Street View? Insufficient notability and coverage to justify a biographical article here. --DAJF (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Imaginably there is something to say about him, but nobody has yet presented it or credibly promised to do so. -- Hoary (talk) 07:26, 13 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Croposition[edit]

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

An unattested neologism, prodded and deleted with rationale "No reliable sources demonstrating that anyone outside of a single forum contributor uses this neologism; no verifiability", and contested after the fact. Most google web hits, and all book hits, are either scanning errors or for a mathematical term that's admittedly above my head but clearly unrelated. The remainder are, exactly as the prodder stated, forum posts and blog comments. —Korath (Talk) 04:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Article's creator admits to making up the word. [67] "Croposition has been added as a word on Wikipedia here. I created the article just this evening! Tell me what you think of my explanation. [link to the article] as you know, I like to make it up as I go along. If you recall, I coined the term, "hydro-bokeh." Well, I'm at it again." Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A10 -- there is no difference between the content of this article and that of Cropping (image) except that "croposition" is not a word you'll find in any legitimate dictionary. Adding syllables to an existing word to add to its importance or to associate yourself with the concept for commercial reasons doesn't make it a different word. Besides, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable neologism lacking reliable secondary sources. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Equilution: Croposition is word that WAS made up by me. All words at some point during human history were "made up." It's a hybrid word deriving from "crop" and "composition." While it does invoke some principles of "cropping," how it differs, perhaps, was not made entirely clear during the original article's creation. Croposition, again, is the philosophy of taking the digital picture know in advance knowing that you're going to crop for effect during post-processing. Most photographers will admit that they have, at some point, felt a little rushed to take a picture. So, they'll take a picture that will record all of the elements, and then "compose" the shot during post-processing. This is just one of the many facets of croposition. Unlike the physical act of 'cropping,' croposition is a mindset...a way of thinking. I hope this explanation helps the cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equilution (talk • contribs) signed by Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC) — Equilution (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fishsticks and Milk[edit]

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

Seem to have at least gotten some attention, but fails to garner the multiple reliable sources required to satisfy WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Here is a list of articles pertaining to events put on by Fishsticks & Milk.

11/06/2009 http://mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=391432

11/25/2009 http://ottawadelivered.com/News/story-News.cfm?id=1071

12/07/2009 http://mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=393327&query=fishsticks

12/13/2009 http://mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=393735&query=tyler

12/15/2009 http://mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=393927&query=fishsticks

12/18/2009 http://www.ottawadelivered.com/News/story-News.cfm?id=1286

12/30/2009 http://mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=394760

1/01/2010 http://www.ottawadelivered.com/News/story-News.cfm?id=1368

As of January 2010, "Fishsticks & Milk Inc." has become an official corporation. We are currently in the process of becoming a non for profit organization.

Fishsticks & Milk is officially registered and recognized as a Non-For-Profit Organization. More information about the group can be found here:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fishsticks-And-Milk/153046179838

And here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/FishsticksAndMilk

Another news story has just been published here:

2/07/2010 http://www.ottawadelivered.com/News/story-News.cfm?id=1715 And official website is in the works. While the page needs to be cleaned up and organized, I think there are certainly enough resources (and enough information) for the group to deserve its own page. 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.144.245.155 (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please be sure to provide informaton concerning your conflict of interest on the article's Talk page every time you edit. Woogee (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:WEB. Woogee (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing here. Geschichte (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely fails the notability guidelines of WP:ORG, which states that an organisation is notable if "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." It goes on to say that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. " There are only a handful of low quality news links to this organisation and no other citations anywhere. It has to go! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:23, 11 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeebsion[edit]

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

Fails notability. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:15, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Barra[edit]

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

Completely unnotable. Links go to subject's website and the home pages of a university and and government ministry. The only Google hits for the book are wikipedia and mirrors. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 03:08, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H. Neill Wilson[edit]

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

*Delete No assertion of notability, as well as no sources, for this minor figure.Keep more information and sources have been added.Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been substantially changed since I put it up for AfD. Hmmm, an AfD should not be a catalyst to get an article up to a decent standard. I still don't think it meets notability criteria even with the changes. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"[A]n AfD should not be a catalyst to get an article up to a decent standard." Why not if it is not and can be - it seems to me that's a good thing. LadyofShalott 03:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith, I assume the nominator meant that it is unfortunate that it requires a deletion nomination to spark good sourcing, which in fairness, is the case here. However, I would suggest that the nominator here would have less to complain about had he done a little WP:BEFORE rather than make this WP:SEP. Bongomatic 03:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to meet WP:CREATIVE criterion #4. Considering the considerable difficulty of finding sources for the time period, and given the fact that considerable online sources have been found in that direction, my call is that the tie goes to the runner in this case. Bongomatic 09:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A remarkable number of sources found considering the time, with significant commissions. The fact that many don't exist today does not diminish their significance, especially given the inherent biases in WP and the FUTON problem. Acroterion (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fellow of the AIA + multiple reliable sources = clearly meets our notability standards. LadyofShalott 03:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has four five buildings individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places (about which I added some to the article). --doncram (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is DYK pending about this article, by the way. This is ready to close. I don't know the etiquette of my possibly doing the close, as i !voted above, but it is ready to be closed as now-obvious Keep. All participants besides nominator have !voted keep now, i think (in edit window now, i am not sure that 100% of others actually voted). --doncram (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: none of us who have voted should close the AfD. LadyofShalott 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extremely well-sourced considering the era of the subject. Edward321 (talk) 03:43, 13 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPYRO Suite[edit]

SPYRO Suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DustiSPEAK!! 18:14, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Edwards[edit]

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

He does not seem to be notable. He wrote one book in the 1970s and got some press mention then, but very little in depth coverage (as required for WP:Notable) then or since. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first nomination seems to be about another person.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. The Milwaukee Sentinel article, in particular, is as much about him as the book. He said (this was 1979) that he was afraid for his life, and that he travelled with a bodyguard. It would be interesting to know what he has done since. The Library of Congress lists Test your Bible IQ (ISBN 0760710627), a 1999 book by Christopher O. Edwards, born 1954 (the same year of birth as this writer), but I can't tell whether the 1999 book is by the same writer. I think that the coverage of the book equates to coverage of him, since the book is about his experiences. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still everything cited in the article is about the one book, the book itself and 3 reviews. He seems to be a person "known only for one thing." Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see some nice referencing work done by Eastmain (talk · contribs), good job. :) Cirt (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I find some reviews and citations of Edwards book: [68]; [69]; [70]; [71]; [72]; etc. LotLE×talk 08:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's true that he is known for one thing. However the amount of coverage of that seems to be enough to pass WP's usual standards of notability. Borock (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per my own review citations above, which seem adequate having considered other !votes here now. LotLE×talk 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Enough to pass WP's usual standards of notability. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:36, 11 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amarjeet Sada[edit]

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

The prod was contested. The subject of the article is only known for one event. Joe Chill (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are alot of articles about people who murdered once. What makes them more notable? Portillo (talk) 05:34, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SABER TEAMS Ltd.[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Note that the alleged references are to home pages of organizations (some of which are news organizations) only, not to any specific articles. My search of those sites didn't turn up any coverage of the subject of the article. Bongomatic 01:59, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Kaneda[edit]

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

Japanese astronomer about whom nothing has been reliably published. The source in the article in not even sufficient to refernce the full name. Kevin (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As the eighth-most prolific individual discoverer of asteroids, he passes WP:Notability (academics). Has a paragraph in Dictionary of Minor Planet Names and also mentioned here; many relevant hits searching for his name in kanji, though google translate mangles them and my Japanese is rusty enough to barely be better. —Korath (Talk) 07:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough notable --Rirunmot 00:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. If this persons is indeed the eighth-most prolific individual discoverer of asteroids then that should be notable. RFerreira (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kudos to Korath. RayTalk 06:34, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. per A9 being due to band article being deleted per related AFD JForget 03:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do or Die EP[edit]

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

Album fails WP:NALBUMS. Never charted anywhere, hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Article has been tagged as an orphan for months and has little in the way of reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 03:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alan - talk 04:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I would like to point out that there is a difference between "did not chart" and "non-notable." Per WP:NALBUMS, an album can be considered notable if it appeared on a chart, but that does not automatically imply that an album is not notable because it did not appear on a chart. Regardless, for the present discussion this album has not been covered outside of unreliable fanzines and self-promotional social networking sites. That is a reason for deletion due to non-notability. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps that is why "didn't chart" isn't the only reason given. Just a thought. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:04, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets Ain't Got No Name, Vol. 2[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bullets Ain't Got No Name, Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable mixtape that never charted anywhere. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Simply fails WP:NALBUMS Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No indication whatsoever this has charted or was covered somewhere, WP:OR assessment or its popularity notwithstanding. Pcap ping 13:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No substantive coverage of this mixtape. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM. Yappy2bhere (talk) 07:12, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gold rush tools and methods[edit]

Gold rush tools and methods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like original research. No sources. DimaG (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP should have articles on gold rush itself, individual historical gold rushes, and gold mining and panning technology. But no reason to combine them all in one article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have edited this article in the past, trying to clean it up a bit, but it's probably a hopeless cause. The topic is poorly chosen to begin with, and is essentially a collection of unsourced and off-topic statements. The fact is that there have been many gold rushes through the centuriesco, and each has had different tools and methods. Plazak (talk) 14:29, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Golestani[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. 1 hit in gnews [73] LibStar (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if he had a well cited article in another language I would not have nominated this. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure. I sure hate for the nominator (or our community as a whole) to be accused of systemic bias... What options do we have if there aren't any good sources available? JBsupreme (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've made a fair effort to find sources for this individual and cannot find much more than a track listing for an album he was involved in. That is not enough to substantiate a WP:BLP article by any means. Feel free to drop me a line if sources are somehow magically found. JBsupreme (talk) 23:22, 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, JForget 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only the one album on ARC,[74] I would give him benefit of the doubt if there were at least two albums, that would satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Nothing systematic or biased about it; regardless of color or creed, he doesn't meet the guideline. Wine Guy~Talk 03:21, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Geschichte (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akmal[edit]

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

I can only find sources in this search which doesn't have significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Looks like the author removed the speedy tag, not sure why it needed to go to AfD. Clubmarx (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an understatement to say I find no evidence of notability per any guideline. Wine Guy~Talk 02:32, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:N. Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rekonq[edit]

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

I can't find significant independent coverage for this software. The fact that's Acid3 100% is probably due to the fact that's just a thin GUI for WebKit. Pcap ping 22:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is probably not very notable yet, but it is in very active devellopment. In a year or so (when it will reach version 1.0, stable) it will definitely deserve a page in Wikipedia. So the question is rather to remove it knowing it will come back in a few month when it matures enough or keep it. Also I think this browser matters for the role it is playing in the KDE desktop environment : KDE default web browser (Konqueror) is not working very well with modern web technology, and a majority of KDE users use Firefox instead. Rekonq is a (young but quite succesfull yet) attempt to built the modern standalone webbrowser that is needed by KDE. Bzhb (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CRYSTAL. There have been dozens of browsers based on someone else's engine that failed to achieve any market share, or notability. Pcap ping 17:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is just that rekonq is starting to be the considered seriously for default browser for KDE ( it is already the default browser in a small early-adopter linux distribution called Chakra, and bigger one like openSuse (KDE version) are considering it for the next release). Bzhb (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge/redirect to WebKit? And when it matures, separate it back. I am with Bzhb on it. Honeyman (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to have any sources establishing notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It works with much more web pages than KDE main browser, Konqueror. Now it has many new features like support for Adblock, KIO, KWallet, Kget, MultiThreaded tabs, etc.[75][76] It is the only full KDE integraded browser that supports webkit (the KDEs KHTML fork), with features from Chromium like the new tab page[77] or the MultiThreaded tabs. Try using an AJAX web page with Konqueror and rekonq, the difference is big. --KDesk (talk) 04:18, 12 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franciscan Missionaries of Divine Compassion[edit]

Franciscan Missionaries of Divine Compassion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization; Google search shows 28 hits, none informative/independent Chonak (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: All that I can find in Google is the official site, Wordpress, Facebook, and American Anglican which isn't independent of the subject. I found zero sources in Google News and Google Books. Fails WP:ORG. Joe Chill (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Anglican Church in North America, as they are a ministry affiliated with that denomination. StAnselm (talk) 07:38, 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, JForget 00:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Joe Chill. Clubmarx (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources from official Anglican websites, journals, etc. mention them. If such sources can be found, merge instead of deleting. Jclemens (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (With some regret) delete -- The wordpress website states that the order consists of one brother and one sister. We regaularly delete articles in "ministries" that are in fact a one man band, and delete or merge articles on NN local churches, though I prefer a merge to the place where it is. Effectively this is one (or two) NN parishes in a new denomination with 700+ parishes. No way can we merge to the denomination, not can I think of a better merge target. Can any one find a list article to which it could be merged? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfy

I am going to contact MichaelQSchmidt and see if he would be willing to have this userfied to his userspace at User:MichaelQSchmidt/The First Men In The Moon in 3-D (film) so that he can merge anything useable with his draft version (mentioned below). Due to editing time differences, I expect to get a reply while I am offline, and so will complete this close tomorrow morning (UTC). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The First Men In The Moon in 3-D (film)[edit]

The First Men In The Moon in 3-D (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crystal ball article, cites no sources, reads like press release. ¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalyn Estrada[edit]

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

Non-notable singer who does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Absolutely zero news coverage except for one article listing her name as a nominee in the "Dance/Urban/Rhythmic" category for a Canadian Radio Music Award, which, as the redlink shows, is not "a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." No other evidence of notability. My PROD was contested with the comment, "lots of airplay of single in Toronto," but MUSICBIO asks whether an artist "[h]as been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Wikipedia:MUSICBIO #2 and #11 - the single was on the "Canada Singles Top 100" for 17 weeks peaking at #59 in the last week of 2009 and also on Billboard's Canadian Hot 100. –xenotalk 20:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: that seems to be from some website called αCharts.us. I can't tell who publishes it, but judging from the terrible spelling and grammar it is not a notable chart. According to the site, "αCharts is a privately held website which went online on April 30, 2007. It's primary goal is to give you a quantitative impression of the happenings in the global music industry, by summarizing chart history of performers, songs and albums. And by listing over 35 music charts from the current and previous weeks, which are free for download without having to register." If this single had charted on the Canadian Hot 100 or Canadian Singles Chart, that would be a different matter, but I can't find evidence of either.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been charting often [78] on the Canadian Hot 100 including 3 weeks in December. Look harder? –xenotalk 00:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment She seems to have debuted at #88 in Aug. 2009 and then dropped off the charts. Without any further chart activity and no apparent independent coverage, this is pretty weak as fa as WP:MUSICBIO goes. freshacconci talktalk 12:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look again, it re-entered the charts after that, peaking at #60 the week of Oct 31, 2009. –xenotalk 13:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 17:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 17:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now without prejudice to recreation in the future if she becomes notable. Currently, she is a one-hit wonder; note that WP:MUSIC states: A musician may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. While she may meet at least one of the criteria for music, she fails the basic criteria of WP:BIO, which in my view means shes not yet notable. Wine Guy~Talk 08:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some more sources. One-hit wonder is a bit speculative, don't you think? Give her a chance, she's only 17. The fact that I heard her song on the radio several times a day for the past 6-months or so tells me she's at least somewhat notable. –xenotalk 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not speculative at all, she is currently known only because she has had one single which has gotten a reasonable amount of radio play. Since she is young, perhaps she will continue on to a very successful career, but that is speculation. Like I said above, I have no problem with this article being re-created when and if she becomes notable. Wine Guy~Talk 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've adequately demonstrated she fulfills at least two criterion of MUSICBIO and thus already is notable. As far as the "one hit wonder", no; I still think it is crystal balling to apply that label to her at this time. Only if her future singles do not achieve critical or popular success can we say that. Also, calling her a one-hit wonder kind of defeats your argument that she is not notable, no? Wonders are notable. :) –xenotalk 01:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we'll just have to agree to disagree; hopefully others will add their input. Wine Guy~Talk 01:30, 10 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Golden[edit]

Josh Golden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Get Ready For This (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Feels Like Christmas (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this meets WP:MUSIC. Josh Golden is a runner-up in a Radio Disney talent show, with two iTunes-only released. Unsigned to any label. Nominating him and his two iTunes EPs for deletion. —Kww(talk) 19:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Being a runner up isn't notable. Clubmarx (talk) 02:29, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete

With no further discussion occurring, the concensus here is obviously to delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danah International Science School[edit]

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

Almost no content, no refs iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 18:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source, TerriersFan? I don't see it on the article or here. tedder (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I, now, since one of the sources turns out to be the same school! More work is needed to establish verifiability. TerriersFan (talk) 21:51, 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, JForget 00:40, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FUDforum[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable software. One paragraph review at the most in obscure sources. Pcap ping 17:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC) (nom withdrawn, see below)[reply]

There are a number of other references to the forum from a number of different places:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following this lead I bought the September 2005 (PDF) issue of php|architect and sure enough, FUDforum is not only mentioned in Ilia Alshanetsky's "An Introduction to PDO" article, but also contains a comprehensive multi-page review of FUDforum 2.7.1 by Peter B. Macintyre. Regards. Naudefj (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume that's so even though the online toc of that issue has no mention of FUDforum. Since you bought the pdf, please add the reference with page range to the article. Given that there's in-depth coverage in two independent sources, I'm withdrawing this nomination. The debate won't be closed yet because Joe Chill !voted delete, and he is harder to convince than I am. An administrator will eventually close the discussion. Pcap ping 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The toc page is clearly truncated. See mention on the magazine's front page. Regards. Naudefj (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pcap's right. I still think that this is non-notable, but this AfD will obviously close as keep. Joe Chill (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Don't know if phpdeveloper.org is considered WP:RS but Jacob Santos' Blog: phpBB is Dead, Long Live FUDForum (or at least SMF) Kgb123 (talk) 19:24, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Adams[edit]

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

All that I can find in Google is profiles. I found zero sources in Google News and Google Books. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marasmusine (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AdventureQuest Worlds[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion because the WP:reliability of the sites mmorpg.com and mmohut.com, which reviewed this game, has been called into question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artix Entertainment (4th nomination). Pcap ping 16:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sain ley Berry[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate who has not held national elected office. He is additionally the editor of some minor specialist journals which do not appear to amount to a claim of notability. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of notability. Nyttend (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - as a minor founder of a major political party and contributor to a major national newspaper I would say he's threshold WP:N. Article needs work, perhaps. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The SDP has several thousand founder Members. Its formation was announced some weeks before the party was formally launched, and people could sign up to the Council for Social Democracy or endorse the Limehouse Declaration before the launch. Peter Sain Ley Berry was not one of the 'Gang of Four' founders of the SDP and isn't mentioned in the academic history of the party (Ivor Crewe and Anthony King, "SDP: The Birth, Life and Death of the Social Democratic Party", Oxford University Press, 1995).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EP32[edit]

EP32 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably non-notable software. Can't find any independent third-party sources to establish notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EP128Emu. Psychonaut (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: All that I can find in Google is unreliable sites. I found zero sources in Google News and Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyway I know about a book that was published in Hungary (apparently not about EP32) but the google books doesn't find it. Deleting articles according google books is not a thorogh method. --Szipucsu (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


What about putting the material about EP32 to the Enterprise computer article? Or do you want to delete that article, too? Anyway I think Wiki's concept about deletion is not really objective. Who would publish anything about a less known 80's computer, rather about its emulator? Are the more known computers better, the less known ones worst? And therefore its emulator is less notable? It is not objective. It is normal that google news and google books gives many results about important things of everyday life and about a very specific area doesn't. It doesn't qualify the specific area itself. Enterprise computer and its emulator IS the part of the computer history as well as Commodore and Spectrum. It is true that this area is mostly undocumented but it doesn't establish its notability. If every notable thing were documented, development of science would hardly stop. :D (And what makes me sad is that people who don't know it decide about which articles to delete and Wiki supports them without asking the opinion of an expert.) --Szipucsu (talk) 20:42, 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, JForget 00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for paying attention to this! If a consensus should be reached, EP128emu article should also be restored for the same reason mentioned above. --Szipucsu (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, epically non-notable and lacking non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 00:32, 10 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ikitza[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:CREATIVE and WP:BAND, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by WP:SPA. MuffledThud (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - albums are on non-notable labels. I see no independent coverage. Clubmarx (talk) 02:17, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Skomorokh  11:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Embers (band)[edit]

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

No sources mentioned on article talk page suggest notability of the actual band. To say nothing of sources mentioned in actual article. Agree that this passes A7 for speedy purposes but seems to fail notability standards for music. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)))[reply]

With the amount of references this article has it should not be deleted. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references are to Myspace pages, blogs, a reference to one member's participation in an unrelated film, and a review for another band that mentions this band as the opening act without commenting on them. I don't think the references pass muster by a long shot. More than half the references are actually to a film that is related to the band only because the film includes one member of the band (the film itself has nothing to do with the band). If you remove the references to the film, you are left with 13 references: 5 Myspace, 1 blog, one to an unnotable music review site, another to a separate band's web site, and two to the same issue of Decibel, the content of which hasn't been verified by anybody other than the article's author (the Decibel Web site features a review of another band that mentions Embers by name once, in passing). The article failed a CSD nom (the article credibly claims notability now), and while you are right to point out the number of references, quantity certainly doesn't equal quality, at least not in this case. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:08, 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, JForget 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no legitimate reason cited here for deleting the Wikipedia entry on the band Embers. Embers is real, and the Wikipedia article is factual. The band plays fairly regularly in the San Francisco Bay Area, and tours occasionally in other parts of the country. I have seen their most recent CD listed at one time or another on the Amoeba Records website, Amazon.com, and eBay. The band is listed on music websites devoted to heavy metal, for example at http://www.metal-archives.com/ and semi-permanent autonomous zone http://www.spaz.org/taxonomy/term/240 and Metal Archives http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=172603 and their gigs in their home town of Oakland are listed on Oakland.com, for example http://www.oakland.com/embers-e507901

This is a real band, with real people, recording real CDs and playing in real concerts. There is no legitimate reason to delete the Wikipedia article on Embers, and doing so would do a disservice to Wikipedia users who turn to this site to seek information on the band. —Preceding comment added by Prairie2010 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — Prairie2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Something being real does not mean that something warrants an article on Wikipedia. See WP:MUSIC. There are clearly defined standards for determining notability on Wikipedia, and they far exceed something being "real." For example, you are a real person, but you do not have an article on Wikipedia about you. There are standards that determine an individual's notability (and preclude an article about you, or me for that matter), just as there are standards that determine a band's notability. The Web sites you list above, in my opinion, do not pass verifiability standards that are required to establish this band's notability, because the only music notability standard that is even being argued in this band's case appears to be press coverage.
I would highly suggest you read the relevant notability standards before throwing out claims like there being "no legitimate reason cited here." My reasons are legitimate and according to the guidelines.
I really hope I'm not coming across like someone with a vendetta against this band, or any band, for that matter. I AfD'd this and am frustrated to see my arguments dismissed out of hand when I actually put in a good amount of time trying to find reliable sources for this article before AfD'ing it. The sources you reference above do not pass verifiability standards, else this article wouldn't have been up for AfD in the first place. Blogs, reviews from anonymous sources and listings for upcoming gigs are not sources that can be used to demonstrate notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaand on that note, I'm going to remove myself from this conversation. I've made my case, and I don't want to appear overly engaged in this. Additionally, re-reading my comments above, they may have come across harsher than intended. Was not my intent. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ's articulate analysis of the sources. I fully agree that the links in the article are not of the caliber required by Wikipedia's verifiability standards. A Google News Archive search for sources (with the search term: Embers "Steven DeCaprio") garners no results, while a Google search only garners thirty-eight results, none of which can be considered reliable sources. Because this band was founded in 2004 and is still active, it would likely have articles in newspapers or magazines that are available online if it were notable. The fact that there are no reliable sources indicates that this band fails the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some less than reliable sources in the article (myspace, blogs, etc.) but there's also San Francisco Bay Guardian, Decibel, Maximum RocknRoll, Political Media Review, Profane Existence and some other very notable and influential punk and underground publications. It's true that not all of them are available online but we're supposed to AGF here. The thing is, pretty much any musical act that adheres to the philosophy of DIY is not going to be mentioned in Rolling Stone or whatever. But that doesn't make them non notable. The fact that the band has appeared and has been mentioned in many of the most important publications dedicated to the topic adds up to notability here.

    So Keep, particularly since this doesn't appear to be a puff-piece or the other extreme, attack article. It's basic information cited to the kind of sources that cover the genre.radek (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A one-word mention in the tabloid newspaper San Francisco Bay Guardian does not establish notability. A user-generated review page (which doesn't even mention Ember) does not allow Embers to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability.

    I am asking for significant coverage in two reliable sources. As of now, the article contains only unreliable sources (e.g. blogs) or a one word mention in a reliable source.

    I acknowledge that sources do not need to be online. In fact, in many cases, sources cannot be found on the Internet due to the age of the band, in that many publications before the 1980s were not documented online. In this particular case, the band is only five years old. If it is notable, there should be some online coverage about it. The fact that a Google search (with the search term: Embers "Steven DeCaprio") — the band's name and its founder — returns only thirty-eight results is a testament to its lack of a significant following and its lack of coverage in reliable sources, and thus its lack of notability. Notable contemporary bands have much more coverage than this, even if some of the coverage is unreliable. A band of the Information Age that lacks an online presence is very likely non-notable. Cunard (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh, I wouldn't call the SF Bay Guardian a "tabloid" - it basically set the standard for the "free alternative newspaper" genre (and is probably more reliable than most "local" non-alternative newspapers). And I think you got it flipped - the longer the band's been around the more likely that online sources are available rather than vice versa ("many publications before the 1980's" may not have been documented online... back in the 1980's ... true .... but have been scanned, uploaded in, etc. since then). Especially true for DIY and punk acts which disseminate themselves through printed zines and such. Also, I think that what needs to be taken into account is the OVERALL sourcing - yes, you can nitpick each source provided but the fact that they come from many different venues adds up to notability here.radek (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia article for the San Francisco Bay Guardian calls it a tabloid (see the infobox).

    True, the longer the band's been around, the more likely the band will have received coverage in reliable sources. However, those sources may not necessarily be online if they were not scanned. See an example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Pump.

    Embers (band)'s lack of notability is due to its lack of coverage in reliable sources. One word / one sentence mentions in a few local sources do not provide the depth of coverage required by Wikipedia:GNG. If you, or the other proponents of keeping this article, have independent reliable sources that provide at least several paragraphs of coverage about the band, feel free to link to them. I have been unable to find any. Cunard (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "OVERALL sourcing" point, I don't think it's "nitpicking" to point out that without exception every single source is either a blog, a passing reference, or a link to Myspace (or a Decibel "review"). It's not as if by sheer volume of unreliable, trivial sourcing one achieves notability. I could get an article written about myself on here with about one week's work in "Internet PR" by that standard. Apologies for the vague straw man there but I completely disagree with your point. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They have received positive reviews in Profane Existence and the current issue of Decibel Magazine. It appears no one working on this has read it except for me. The passing reference referred to in Decibel is from a previous issue not the current issues. I have already partially quoted the review on the talk page so please check your facts. They are also former members of Lesser of Two and the drummer collaborated with former members of Filth (band). The San Francisco Bay Guardian is a reliable news source with competent journalism and an editorial review process. As you know wikipedia articles are not reliable so the use of the word "tabloid" is merely a semantic argument. It probably only refers to the layout and manner of distribution, not the editorial process. As it stands both the Decibel review and the S.F. Bay Guardian refer to Embers as peers of Ludicra and Saros (band) both of which are sufficiently notable to have their own entries. This band thus is notable on two grounds: 1. sufficient coverage and 2. former members of notable music groups. javascript:insertTags('noodle 23:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
Oh, they also were discussed in the article on Noisecreep.com which is an Aol/Time Warner news site. That's the first citation in the entry. I believe the reviews in Decibel and Profane Existence are more substantial, but these things should be looked at cumulatively relative to the genre of Red and Anarchist Black Metal which is pretty underground by it's nature.noodle 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
This strikes me as disingenuous: "they also were discussed in the article on Noisecreep.com". Perhaps also a matter of semantics, but an off-hand reference does not constitute Embers being "discussed." I reviewed that citation. The source is verifiable. The coverage is dedicated to another band, with two brief mentions of Embers. It reads "Along with Oakland's Embers", and then "Opening was Embers' female-fronted ambient black metal mix of despair, keys, and continuous flow while supporting the band's latest album, the self-released 'Memoria In Aeterna.'" I don't know if you are intentionally misrepresenting the nature of the coverage in this debate in the hope that nobody will actually read it, or if you think this actually constitutes coverage -of Embers-, but in my view the latter is certainly not the case. I also have no idea what this means: "As you know wikipedia articles are not reliable so the use of the word "tabloid" is merely a semantic argument." Are you suggesting we allow unreliable sourcing because Wikipedia is unreliable? That's a circular argument if I've ever heard one! (Yes, the last point is a trivial one -- just struck me as an odd argument, heh).
Additionally, as the article's author it is generally assumed you are in favor of it not being deleted :). Not that you don't get to vote, I just want to make sure it's clear that your involvement is not independent of bias. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two bands you list above are not notable. I note that the band we are currently debating and one of the two bands you list above have been created by the same user.

    Lesser of Two contains references that are analogous to those in this article — none of these references are reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Lesser of Two. Having done a Google News Archive search about Lesser Than Two, I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources. I note that this band is also founded by Steven DeCaprio, who is likewise non-notable per this Google News Archive search, which returns no relevant results.

    Filth (band) currently contains no references and does not appear to be notable per this Google News Archive search.

    Yes, the band has been "mentioned" in several local publications; these mentions are always present in a laundry list of other bands, some of which are notable, most of which are not. There is no indication that Embers (band) passes Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles.

    Addendum: I note that your account has 21 edits, the last of which made on January 8, 2010, before you posted to this AfD. As you seem to be familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, such a WP:MUSIC, do you have another account on Wikipedia? And how did you find out about this discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re the band "Filth" - it's true that that article is unsourced but actually that band is pretty legendary, with members of the band being basically associated in some way with most punk music that came out of Northern California (and beyond) during the 90's (and later). The reason your search is not finding anything is simply because the word "Filth" is such a common word (as is the phrase "Lesser of Two" and the word "Embers") so any relevant hits are likely to drown in a sea of unrelated noise. But here is one for Filth: [82]radek (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though a discussion about the lack of sources of another band is deviating from the discussion at hand, the San Francisco Weekly source you posted above mentions the band Filth in one sentence. This does not establish notability.

    Instead of searching for sources for other bands, please find some for Embers (band). Cunard (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You brought it up (here and at the other AfD). And you're missing the main point - not whether the single sfweekly is sufficient to establish notability or not. Rather that checking Google for "Filth band East-bay" is not going to be a very good gauge of notability here because the word "Filth" - like the phrase "Lesser of Two" and the word "Embers" (and this is why this is in fact on topic) - is such a common word.radek (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I discussed the lack of notability of a band with which Embers performed because Black Kronstadt (talk · contribs) attempted to use it to bolster the notability of Embers.

    My searches for sources (1. Filth band "East Bay" ; 2. "Lesser of Two" band Decaprio ; 3. Embers "Steven DeCaprio") are apt queries for bands with such generic names. If you disagree with this mode of searching for sources, please provide better search terms. Cunard (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, I'm here because the article in question appeared in the access logs of my website as a referring page. I don't make many edits here, since my knowledge of English language is far from perfect. I also have accounts in Russian and Spanish Wikipedias (though not very active too). No wonder that I'm familiar with the criteria of notability and reliability of sources, because I've already had a big discussion about it before (see the talk about the inclusion of RABM section into Black metal article). As for Filth, at a first glance they seem notable to me, because they have released a lot of albums on significant indie labels (Lookout Rec., Springman Rec., and especially Alternative Tentacles - all these labels have a relatively long history and a number of notable bands). Now let's discuss the notability of Lesser of Two, where it's appropriate. Black Kronstadt (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decibel review and Embers[edit]

I think the Decibel Magazine coverage for Embers (band) may have been inadvertently misrepresented. The reference is a review in Decibel from the current issue, not an old blog which was never cited as a reference. This is the full quote from the current Decibel review:

"EMBERS Embers

The Bay Area just can't stop producing good bands. Embers make complete sense in the context of local peers like Ludicra and Saros. They've got punk, black metal, street grit and that special Bay Area brand of melancholy [via lovely viola]. Bands like this you hold onto for a while. www.myspace.com/embers666"

(There is a photo of the cover of their C.D. next to the review.)noodle 00:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

Here is a link to a page on Decibel's Web site which lists all of the reviews present in the March, 2010 issue: Decibel March reviews. I do not know what the content you are quoting above actually is, but it is not something Decibel considers to be a "review." Nor do I believe it constitutes non-trivial coverage, particularly when one considers that this is the only source that, in my view, -clearly- passes verifiability standards. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is on page 88 in issues number 65. I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I don't have a scanner handy. Can someone with a scanner please go to the news stand. Decibel is not an online magazine. Just because Decibel does not list every review they have does not mean its not there. I am rather frustrated with the lack of trust here. Also, Profane Existence Magazine is just as reliable as any other news source. Why do you consider Decibel magazine reliable and not, MRR, Profane Existence, SF Bay Guardian, etc.? Also, no one has spoken to the second element of "former members of other notable music groups". Decibel magazine coverage is just one of a number of reasons to keep this article. noodle 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Look, put yourself in my shoes. Who do I trust more to tell me what reviews are in Decibel magazine: Decibel.com's list of reviews in Decibel Magazine or "Noodlesteve"? My issue with most of the other coverage (and, really, the Decibel coverage) is its trivial nature. The SFBG coverage seems lacking in credibility to me. Also, read the notability inheritance standard: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Embers needs to be an ensemble with "independently notable musicians." The latter point, the one you think applies to the article, is a point that applies to articles about individual musicians. That is not a reason to keep the article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By way of illustrative example of the last point there, Bono is notable as a member of U2. The New Pornographers, pre-fame, could have been notable because of their incorporation of several notable Canadian musicians. Keanu Reeves' band does not automatically become notable and worthy of an article because Keanu Reeves is a member (although, of course, that Keanu Reeves has a band is so hilarious that the band gets significant non-trivial coverage and becomes notable). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I were in your shoes I would realize that Decibel's list of reviews may not be exhaustive and that if I misrepresented the facts I would get banned from wikipedia. At the very least it's a net sum zero game, but you have taken the position of concluding the review doesn't exist when in fact it does. This is irresponsible, and as such you are spreading misinformation. On your other points I believe we agree on the facts, but disagree on our conclusions. We can let the consensus unfold, but I want this to be an informed discussion.
Also, if Bono formed another band I'm sure you would agree it was notable. Well, the founding members of this band were involved in two notable music groups Lesser of Two and Fileds of Shit featuring two members of Filth (band). I guess my point is that we should look at the totality of the circumstances because every music group is different, and standards of notability, no matter how exhaustively defined, are still subjective. I hope you don't believe an artist must be famous in order to be notable because these musical groups are certainly not household names like Bono. javascript:insertTags('noodle 01:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)',,)
Thank you for posting the text of the Decibel review: (1) The Bay Area just can't stop producing good bands. (2) Embers make complete sense in the context of local peers like Ludicra and Saros. (3) hey've got punk, black metal, street grit and that special Bay Area brand of melancholy [via lovely viola]. (4) Bands like this you hold onto for a while. This is trivial coverage that contains no substance. Sentence #1 does not tell me anything about the band; it is a generalization about The Bay Area. Neither does sentence #2 which compares the band to two other non-notable local bands. Sentence #3 is the only useful sentence and contains information about the genre. Sentence #4 also provides no context; how do "[b]ands like this hold [on] for a while? The lack of context in this source disqualifies it from being a possible factor of establishing notability.

A band does not inherit notability from non-notable members of marginally notable bands; see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited. Cunard (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Description of Sources by AfD Nominator (Keep that in mind when reading, I'm not wholly independent)[edit]

I'm going to go batty and just do an itemized list of what the sources in the article actually are, because I think people are reading certain names in the sourcing and going "oh, well that sounds reliable." Listing by reference number:

  • 1. Noisecreep. This is a review of another band's show that mentions that Embers opened, and then has one sentence which describes Embers' style. That sums it up.
  • 2. SFBG. Lengthy article that mentions Embers in a list of bands that include women. No actual coverage of Embers, just a mention in a list.
  • 3. MMR. This is a reference about another band. It is not about Embers.
  • 4-9. References discussing totally unrelated to band activity by one member. Said member is not notable, nor are most of the references actually directly about this member. Again, this reference is not about the band, it attempts to establish the notability of one member of the band, and in my view does not.
  • 10-12. See above, same deal.
  • 13-15. See above, same deal.
  • 16, 19. The controversial Decibel reference.
  • 17. Link to unreliable source.
  • 18. Profane Existence. Reviews are submitted by subscribers to the publication. Conclude what you will.

There, I've now gone insane over this AfD. If you're still reading this far, your tolerance for debate is...very well-suited to Wikipedia, go check out WP:ANI, thx. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I created the page I'm not wholly independent either. Also, since we updated the page simultaneously then I guess we're both going batty. I will give my perspective on the aforementioned.
  • 1. Noisecreep. This is an interview with a band that played a show with Embers and they talk about Embers music and why the band decided to play with Embers. Embers is not the sole focus of the article, but there is more than one sentence on them. Three to be precise.
  • 2. SFBG. Embers is mentioned as one of 6 metal bands in the SF Bay Area Featuring women. The article states this is a higher number than other cities, and the existence of Embers is one of a handful of bands supporting that conclusion.
  • 3. MRR. you forgot to mention that the "other band" was Lesser of Two a three piece with two of the three founding members of Embers that has passed notability standards for wikipedia and that Embers is often referred to as ex members of Lesser of Two.
  • 4-15. political media review, imdb, SF Bay Guardian (again, different article), law.com/the Recorder, etc. various reliable publications establishing the political activities of the band establishing their political activism. This is relevant to their status as a Red and Anarchist Black Metal band.
  • 16., 19. The Decibel Review is quoted above. It's only controversial if you want it to be.
  • 17. Heathen Harvest is a webzine. It's just as reliable as a print source. It is not a blog and has Editorial control. There is even an "editor's note" at the bottom of the review showing that submissions are subject to an editorial process. (hmm. you don't like printed sources because they are hard to verify online, but now online magazines are unreliable without explanation.)
  • 18. Profane Existence. Reviews are submitted by staff. They do accept music from bands for possible review, but the reviews are controlled by staff. Perhaps you were confused by the "Review Submissions" box. Read a little further and it becomes clear. There is no access to upload content. Profane Existence is a nationally known zine. Your assertions on P.E. are false. I assume you are not a reader of this magazine. noodle 02:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
  • I see one recurring theme in your analysis of the sources. The argument for Embers' notability is based off passing mentions in articles about other bands, some of which are notable. The issue with the sources here is that none of them provide significant coverage about this band. This is required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Are there two independent reliable sources that provide significant (several paragraphs of) coverage about this band? Cunard (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a lengthy response to Noodle's thoughts above and have decided to remove most of it. We're going in circles. Noodle and I should both detach ourselves from this AfD at this point, methinks. We're just gumming up the works with endless banter, and I think the above two reference lists are probably the closest either of us will come to a summation.
Only thing I will leave in is this: Obviously, I disagree with your assessment that I'm saying that "online magazines are unreliable without explanation," and also disagree with "I don't like printed sources because they are hard to verify online." The first is an absurd blanket statement and I quite clearly never said anything like that, and the second isn't actually true. It's actually very easy to verify printed sources online -- particularly current issues.
  • I'm babbling. Apologies. We certainly agree on one thing: battyness! :) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I could have phrased the comment to be less of a blanket statement my point was that I thought it was contradictory for you to deny the existence of the Decibel article (see: WP:AGF), and then without any justification call the webzine Heathen Harvest unreliable. I will also take issue with your assertion earlier that my arguments have been disingenuous. So far you have made three verifiably false statements. First, that the Decibel review didn't exist., second, that the Noisecreep article only had one sentence on Embers (in fact three), and that Profane Existence allows reviews by subscribers. All this along with your attack on Heathen Harvest makes your arguments suspect. To be fair I assume that these were merely oversights on your part, but to call me disingenuous is not in keeping with WP:AGF. So far I have gone far beyond the bulk of most band entries in similar genres and if we follow Ginsengbomb and Cunard's logic to it's ultimate conclusion then we should remove nearly every underground metal band on wikipedia. Most of these bands rely on word of mouth so the fact that any sources exist at all is rather unusual. I see that Cunard is now attacking the notability of Ludicra, Saros (band) (despite both having wikipedia entries), and has started a deletion discussion on Lesser of Two. I should also note the only person involved in WP:METAL is ScarTissueBloodBlister and they voted to keep. noodle 02:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
  • Even if the reviews you listed above were considered reliable, they are not sufficient because one (or two or three) sentence(s) does not pass the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    So far I have gone far beyond the bulk of most band entries in similar genres and if we follow Ginsengbomb and Cunard's logic to it's ultimate conclusion then we should remove nearly every underground metal band on wikipedia. Most of these bands rely on word of mouth so the fact that any sources exist at all is rather unusual. You are correct. Underground bands which lack coverage in reliable sources cannot be included in Wikipedia because they fail Wikipedia's core policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cunard, your statement that WP:GNG requires "several paragraphs" is incorrect. The guidelines state that you need "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." As such a band spontaneously discussing Embers in their own interview is sufficient. I do however appreciate you honesty regarding your tendency towards "underground bands". I'm sure many on wikipedia feel that having more comprehensive music content than you do would be in wikipedia's best interest as a useful resource. I agree that coverage and reliability are important, but I believe the coverage should be within the context of the genre, not some huge breakthrough into mainstream media. I believe both our perspectives fall within a gray area the guidelines don't specifically address (hence AfD). noodle 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

Ginsengbomb, what is your problem? You said in a post above that "I'm going to remove myself from this conversation. I've made my case, and I don't want to appear overly engaged in this." I count SEVEN (7) posts you've made subsequent to your promise. You not only "appear overly engaged;" you are demonstrating an obsession with this topic that (a) is not healthy, and (b) destroys such minimal credibility as could be attributed to your little vendetta. Be true to your word, and give it a rest, already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.179.202 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ginsengbomb has policy-based arguments that are valuable additions to the debate. I do not see that in the other participants of the debate. Whilst I do not see the need for Gingsengbomb to abstain from further participation in this debate, the aforementioned user does not wish to get in debates where the participants with the opposing viewpoint engage in unfounded, abrasive accusations of bad faith.

    Instead of discussing the motives of those supporting deletion, please provide examples of reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject. Bad faith accusations will not allow the article to be retained. Sources will improve the arguments of those voting "keep" and will enable the article to be retained. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser of Two[edit]

O.K. so now this AfD has spilled over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesser of Two. I don't know how I feel about this move by Cunard. Especially since Cunard was not part of the Lesser of Two editing process and has undercut WikHead's previous tag which was much less drastic than AfD. Is this really appropriate? noodle 03:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs) [reply]

Well, it seems more like a way of collaterally attacking the Embers article by attacking the notability of associated articles. I see that you are now arguing that Nikt Nic Nie Wie is not a notable label and that Maximumrocknroll, HeartattaCk, Flipside Magazine, and so on are not reliable publications. It just seems like a downward spiral. noodle 05:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
If your interested in keeping this article (I think of only one reason why this much effort has been spent in it's defence) you should stop attacking people and concentrate on improving the artiucle duffbeerforme (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia notability guidlines, WP:FAILN state, "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself" Since Cunard never participated in the process of editing either article and proposed AfD of Lesser of Two immediately upon discovering its existence it seems that he is violating this guidline. This is different from the Embers AfD because Ginsengbomb had been involved in the Talk:Embers_(band) from the beginning. It appears that Ginsenbomb followed the guidlines in regard to Embers but Cunard did not in regard to Lesser of Two. Cunard should have done research, made suggestion, and given me a reasonable time to do research before doing the AfD of Lesser of Two. That is my only point. As it stands Cunard only began researching after the AfD which is more competetive than collaborative. Now I am involved in two AfDs while both pages are only two weeks old and addmitadly need some work which is also on my shoulders. This is a legitimate point of process not a personel attack. javascript:insertTags('noodle 18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (good work by Ginsengbomb). 6 refs to say one member was in an unrelated documentary? 3 to say another was in an unrelated project? 3 links to an unrelated organisations website to say a member is involved? Let's overload an article with references to make a band look significant. As for being "related to 2 independently notable bands", Lesser of Two is of questionable notability and Filth has no Embers members. Not good enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Embers as the references are more than sufficient. gidonb (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria #6 WP:BAND[edit]

I have added numberous references and links to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lesser_of_Two. Please take them into consideration when considering criteria #6 of WP:BAND. Embers is in many ways a continuation of Lesser of Two under a different name adding more musicians including Buchanan who was in Fields of Shit with two members of Filth (band). The application of the term "ensemble" in this context is difficult to apply. Lesser of Two had numerous changes in line-up with Nelson and DeCaprio as the only consistent members. Is an ensemble the project or the people in the project? I would have merged the articles, but that would have interfered with it's readability due to the change in music styles as well as the fact that members of Lesser of Two who were less consistent nonetheless went onto play in other note worty groups such as Ballast, Look Back and Laugh, and Pleasant Valley.

Also these are the links to the not so "infamous" Decibel review: File:Decibel.Embers.Review.jpg and File:Decibel.Embers.Cover.JPG javascript:insertTags('noodle 20:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,)

Addendum Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lesser_of_Two has ended in a decision to Keep. Given the context Embers should pass under criteria #6 as well as criteria #1 of WP:BAND any further improvements can be made with proper editing and research. Also, since Embers is a current active band there is no doubt that any grey area regarding a threshold of said criterea will be passed as Embers continues to tour and release new music. noodle 07:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Noodle talk

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visual IRC[edit]

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

Delete. So, I looked for sources. I found a couple hits on Google Books! Don't get too excited, they all look like this: "Visual IRC is a program for communicating in chat rooms", or a URL where you can download it. I was unable to locate non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources which would suggest notability of this software application. JBsupreme (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 84user (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- 84user (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All that I can find in Google is download sites and Google Groups. All that I can find in Google News is a forum, information about a software vulnerability, and a one sentence mention. All that I can find in Google Books are one sentence mentions and URLs to download it. Joe Chill (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wp:rs coverage in Punto Informatico, [83], de:netzwelt [84], El Tiempo [85] and fr:infos du net [86]]. According to the portal Terra Networks, it is one of the more popular chat client[87] which establishes a claim to wp:n walk victor falk talk 16:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know a number of people whom currently utilize many of the IRC networks. Majority of those whom are on a Unix machine will connect to their network with some sort of 'visual irc' client. I think as independent software becomes more available on the internet due to the increased population learning some sort of a programming language, we need to establish Software with a new and slightly more relaxed code of conduct. There are so many programs available for free on the internet and most of them are unheard of. The problem independent developers have is generating controversy over their software; And without this attention it is nearly impossible for most independent developers to gain significant notability. But Even in terms of notability, Wouldn't it be the website that houses the software to be the most notable about the subject? Especially in terms of software. AquaFiX (talk) 12:52am 8th Monday 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems to be an older client, popular in the 1990s. It's surely mentioned in a dozen books indexed by google, but coverage is hard to ascertain because there's not even limited preview for the old ones, and in the newer one it's only mentioned in lists. This 2001 book includes in the short list of popular clients back then, together with mIRC and PIRCH. As for the links above by Victor Falk, they are all in lists of similar software or download pages. There's a fairly brief review here (one of the publications of internet.com), also included in a 2000 round-up in the Polish PC World [88] (you have more luck if you search for the "virc" acronym). Pcap ping 10:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got myself a copy of Charalabidis's book, which is good for ancient stuff like this, and it's covered in a page of text, no screenshot: Charalabidis, Alex (1999). "Windows IRC Clients: Visual IRC". The Book of IRC: The Ultimate Guide to Internet Relay Chat. No Starch Press. pp. 37–38. ISBN 1-886411-29-8. Pcap ping 19:09, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Geschichte (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoldGamer[edit]

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

Non-notable website lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Article lacks references. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Clubmarx (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Cannot find anything to verify notability. Mattg82 (talk) 00:14, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Karam[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Seems the editor is his son and un sourced /no reliable source to support the notability. Matthew_hk tc 03:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google hit saw there is a real person and real book, but don't know fails WP:AUTHOR or not. Matthew_hk tc 03:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think he makes it as notable. The books are from a real publisher, not self-published. According to the blurb at Amazon, his wine book was reviewed by The New Statesman and The Daily Star, and was praised by the author of Sotheby's Wine Encyclopaedia. Authors in this genre are probably never going to make the New York Times, but he seems notable enough. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Britton (author)[edit]

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

Only seems to have published one book, "IT Architecture and Middleware: strategies for building larger, scalable systems" published by Addison-Wesley. Aside from that, there really isn't anything else that he's notable for. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:28, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred George Al-Babilly[edit]

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

All that I can find in Google is profiles, sites about unrelated people, wikis, Ebay, Flickr, and videos. I found zero sources in Google News and Google Books. The article is unreferenced. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to this profile he has collaborated with BBC and Jordanian TV. Unfortunately, I can't find out more about him. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Geschichte (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Conover[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Geschichte (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elastik Soul[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage. Clubmarx (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could only find trivial mentions of the band. No significant coverage. Jujutacular T · C 13:18, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Chin[edit]

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

Not notable. Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, insufficient sources to prove notability. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There's this paragraph about him in Vibe, mentions here and here in New York Magazine, a mention in Time Magazine. He's also mentioned in smallish newspapers here and here. None of this really amounts to significant coverage, true. However, it may well be the case that Chin "is regarded as an important figure . . . by [his] peers," to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:CREATIVE. I'm on the fence, tilting I think toward the negative because of the absence of substantive coverage, rather than one-sentence mentions.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking through a Gnews search, his work does seem to get a lot of attention in the fashion industry. Some of these articles speak of him and his work in terms like "Vanity Fair's iconic images", "The picture you can't stop talking about", "top names in fashion photography", "American top fashion photographer Walter Chin", etc.; this leads me to lean toward him being "regarded as an important figure" in his field, therefore meeting WP:CREATIVE. Wine Guy~Talk 02:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by Wine Guy and Glenfarclas above. The mentions in New York Magazine and Time Magazine should not be dismissed as trivial. Jenafalt (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per refs provided above, but someone please integrate them so we don't end up here again in a few weeks? Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:49, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Color symbolism and psychology[edit]

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

The premise of the article is flawed; psychology is an actual science, whereas the rest is just contestable mysticism. Mixing the two in one article makes very little sense. The sourced material should be moved to different or new articles where appropriate, and the new-age content should be separated from the content about psychological research or forgotten about entirely where it isn't documenting a directly attributable belief (with sources). Snied (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suppose the question is whether anything worthwhile can be salvaged. If anything, it might be by deleting everything prior to the Psychology section? But then almost every sentence even in that remaining section is crying out for citation-required tags. AllyD (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the salvageable stuff is pretty marginal too, that's why I personally believe that deletion is the best option. If the article itself is to be salvaged it will need to be edited very heavily and also renamed. Snied (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per given rationale. its really 2 potential articles, and current content is too unsourced.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the content regarding colors as per specific cultures and religions is true and can be sourced - it should be restructured into 2 articles, but throwing it all away would be a waste. The article also does need to be more clear in what color meanings are universal across cultures and which are specific - I'm guessing many of the meanings are specific to primarily Western countries but aren't specified as so. 128.113.241.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is too much of a muddle to keep in the article space but it could be put in somebody's user space if they think parts of it are useful to writing better articles on these two subjects. A wealth of source material exists on these subjects, much of it promoting various views of the meaning of different colours. The articles need to cover all the main views rather than make definite statements according to one of the theories. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Badly written and mostly unsourced. The few available sources are not peer-reviewed and frankly look fishy. At a glance, it seems to present a mostly western preference for using certain colours for different things as some sort of universal law. This collection of pseudoscientific nonsense is really a shame as there is actually quite a bit of interesting peer-reviewed material about color psychology (like http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a790571796~db=all~order=page). Smocking (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 13 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 01:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferhat Odabaşı[edit]

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

fails notability? (I can't find anything notable on him).. not to mention quaility guidelines of WP:BIO Alan - talk 00:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and what has he done that's notable? has he won many awards? is he in a hall of fame? is he the highest paid player in the league? exactly what makes him notable, and why isn't it in the article so it passes Quality guidelines? Alan - talk 02:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Wikipedia:Athlete, which states that "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis" are considered notable. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the additional requirements.. it's failing the basic requirements Alan - talk 08:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 'additional requirements' state: A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Jujutacular T · C 13:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - assuming the article is accurate, he has made fully professional appearances. matt91486 (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Based on the TFF reference on the article, he has only played for TFF First League teams, or in a lower division. I don't know if the Turkish second division is fully proffessional or not. If it is then Keep since he would clearly meet WP:ATHLETE. If not, Delete since he would fail that guideline and he fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article about athlete who has played in the top (fully-pro) league of Turkey (albeit briefly) and is the subject of numerous coverage in the Turkish press (e.g., this). I'm struggling to find much English-language coverage, but that's not reason enough to delete. Jogurney 22:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes ATHLETE having played in Süper Lig, sources provided, additional coverage is out there if anyone has a mind to improve the article.--ClubOranjeT 09:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When did he play in the Süper Lig? Accoridng to the TFF source, his time at Gençlerbirliği OFTAŞ was while they where in the First League. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He played in the Süper Lig during August and September 2007 (check either of the Guardian Stats Centre or TFF sources for confirmation). It's only five matches, but it should be enough, and he's made 81 second level appearances, which is probably a fully-pro level. Jogurney (talk) 13:51, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gouge your eyes[edit]

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

Made up drinking game. No ghits for a game of this name. Contested PROD. Clubmarx (talk) 00:05, 7 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.
More