< 16 June	18 June >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Green (PR manager)[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, fails to meet notability guidelines - this person works in PR and has supported a number of notable people, but that does not make the subject himself notable. He has published a number of works through "Rocket Pocket Books" but no information can be found on this publisher through Google which leaves to me believe they are all self published. Given the fawning POV tone such as "he is held in very high regard by the fans" I'm even tempted to think there is some autobiographical / COI content in this article. Bottom line - I don't think it adds value to Wikipedia. Biker Biker (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the books are self published, otherwise the article might have nosed over the threshold for notability. If this isn't self promotion, it was written by someone with a connection to the subject. Seaphoto^Talk 00:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage is limited to stuff like this which identify him as heading up the fan clubs for Split Enz and Crowded House. But that's not enough to show notability. Nor was I able to find any indication his writing has recevied notice. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 21 June 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) 00:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fragment Earth[edit]

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

Non-notable e-book series. Sold in the Kindle store but I couldn't locate any non-trivial, secondary sources on the series or its author. 2 says you, says two 21:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, self-published. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 22 June 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) 00:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PRoVisG[edit]

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

Previously deleted by Prod, this is yet another Seventh Framework Programme article. There is a concerted effort to get articles on these funding instruments onto Wikipedia; http://aksw.org/SoerenAuer/HowToDescribeResearchProjectsOnWikipedia/. As is often the case, no independent secondary sourcing on the topic of PRoVisG exists. Abductive (reasoning) 21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a rule I don't really think research projects are notable, if they comeup with significant results then would be the time for it to appear on wikipedia. In any case is is failing general notability guidelines with no coverage in independent sources. --Salix (talk): 22:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As is typical of these funding project articles, it showers glittering generalities, promising marvels without any evidence of actual achievement: to build a unified European framework for Robotic Vision Ground Processing. State-of-the-art computer vision technology is being collected inside and outside Europe to better exploit the image data gathered during future robotic space missions to the Moon and the Planets. This will lead to a significant enhancement of the scientific, technological and educational outcome of such missions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:02, 18 June 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 University of London#Sports, clubs and traditions. –MuZemike 01:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University Of London Dragons[edit]

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

Non notable university Ice Hockey team. Generally, sports teams at UK universities aren't notable within their own institution. This does not appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions. A Google search returns up nothing of value in terms of citable material. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find anything to grant this team notability. Although I'm not surprised - ice hockey has a very small fanbase in the United Kingdom. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect anything useful to the Athletics section of the university page which is normally done in such situations. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect per DJSasso. T3h 1337 b0y 21:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect for now Some info would be useful merging into athletics. Secondary sourcing is required to act as a stand alone. Could be re-created down the road. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable, as are 99.9% of UK university sports teams. The trouble with merge is it gives undue weight within the main article. Nuttah (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nuttah. Codf1977 (talk) 13:39, 24 June 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) 00:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

APS – Audio Pro Solutions[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's this review about one of their products. But I'm not seeing a lot of coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 21 June 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) 00:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ULU Basketball League[edit]

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

Non notable league for teams *within* a university. Google search returns absolutely nothing of worth. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as very non notable. University level sport in the UK receives no coverage (apart from Boat Race and a couple of other events). Intramural sport receives a 100 times less coverage. No chance of meeting WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 20:24, 19 June 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) 00:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D.a.m.n.[edit]

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND. Aspects (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 18 June 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. Withdrawn by nominator with no votes to delete. --Polaron | Talk 14:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Route 595[edit]

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

Non-notable Ketucky state secondary road that fails WP:USRD/NT. Millbrooky (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The road is actually not a secondary state highway and is a primary state highway, which is notable per the standards. Dough 48 72 15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference and this map suggest otherwise. They both list KY 595 as a "state secondary route," not as part of the "state primary system." The great majority (95%) of the highway is actually listed as "rural secondary." --Millbrooky (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From looking at the map, it appears that KY 595 is several miles long and serves as the main road through western Madison County. In addition, there are several other articles on secondary routes in KY. Dough 48 72 16:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In Kentucky, the primary and secondary state highway classes are nothing more than internal classifications; they're both signed the same way and are both part of the same statewide numbering system. While this route may be only part of the secondary system, it should be noted that there are several routes that have segments in both systems. – TMF 16:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Internal designations aside, it's still a state highway. Numerous precedents in the last five years have established that state highways are notable because the state felt it necessary to single out a roadway for inclusion in their state highway network and funding with tax dollars. The article was only created within the last 48 hours, so deletion at this time before the editors have had a chance to establish the article is not appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 17:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should the wording of WP:USRD/NT be changed then to acknowledge previous precedent? As of right now, the key sentence reads "Secondary state highways and county highways that are part of a statewide system (i.e. the highway numbers do not repeat themselves across the state) may or may not be sufficiently notable to merit a unique article." (emphasis added) I guess I'm just having trouble understanding how a road with .9 miles classified as state secondary, 21.4 miles as rural secondary, and 2.4 miles as supplementary is considered notable. Would KY 3377, a signed rural secondary road, be considered notable, as well? --Millbrooky (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a difference between internal classification and signed reality. The fact that Kentucky might internally designate the road as a secondary road doesn't matter. In Michigan, some roads carry different internal classifications that make them lower priority roads. That classification usually affects truck permits, weight limits and snow-plowing priority, but does not change the signs used on the roads. Kentucky doesn't have have a secondary highway system, not like its neighbor to the south, Tennessee. That state actually has two different route markers: primary highways have a square with the state outline at the bottom, and secondary highways have a rounded-corner triangle marker. Some Tennessee highways are classified as both types, and signed as such. The guideline you cite only says that they may or may not be notable, but the proper course of action here should have been to PROD a new article to give the authors a chance to edit it for notability. If disputed and not updated, the article could then be brought to AfD. I'm advocating that the AfD be closed as keep, and at a later date, the article can be reevaluated on notability grounds to decide sustaining the article or deletion. Imzadi 1979 → 20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most state routes should survive in USRD. --P C B 19:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Withdraw - I guess I chalk this one up to misinterpretation of notability for USRD and an itchy trigger finger. At least for now. --Millbrooky (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The secondary routes that WP:USRD/NT is referring to are the signed, distinct secondary systems such as Missouri's lettered route system and Virginia's secondary routes. Routes classed as secondary in an internal document, while still being signed as part of the same primary system, are not the type of "secondary routes" the guideline is referring to. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on past precedent at AfD, almost all state highways are considered notable. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 21 June 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) 00:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAP countries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/MAP countries

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

Either doesn't seem to exist in real life or not very notable. Can't find much info on it. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the busted-up nomination but I can't seem to repair it. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially arbitrary grouping of nations, not enough coverage to establish notability. Claritas § 20:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any verification as to this acronym.My76Strat (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sourcing to support such a grouping. Fences&Windows 22:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be better to add a fact tag after the articles first sentence instead of deleting the whole thing ? Sansonic (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Fraid not. The topic of the article is unverifiable; completely unverifiable articles have to be deleted. If you can provide any sources at all that refer to such a grouping of these three nations, that would be a start. As it is, the article is original research. Fences&Windows 11:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well if there are no sources which refer to the MAP pact specifically then we will have to pull the article. I am sure that there will be some coverage of this grouping in the near future, but for now I will do as the rules say and allow the article to be deleted. Thanks, Sansonic (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete*** I don't find any specific sources. Hash789 (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With all due respect to the creator of the article, who may know something I don't, a group of ancient shoe-repairers comes to my mind. This is a rather disparate grouping with no evidence available for its existence. Even the references given don't support anything much more than the existence of the countries. If anyone (desperate plea follows...) can give evidence, please do and I will apologise. I prefer keeping articles (despite my record of deletion tags applied...). PS I've moved someone's citations needed tag to what I think is a better place. The statement it was applied to is obvious. The one where it is needed comes before it. Peridon (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it even matters, but I placed the initial tag, and it was posted exactly as you have shown it. An interim edit squeezed the additional sentence in front of the tag moving it. In either regard it was my initial response after having no success at verification of the acronym. The subsequent actions and the fact it is now here in some measure shows that maintenance tags can effectively alert an article which may be problematic. My vote is also recorded above. Kind regards. My76Strat (talk) 04:43, 21 June 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) 00:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Colonials[edit]

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

In the United Kingdom, University teams are largely unknown within their own campus. There are few exceptions - and this isn't one of them. There's no references, a Google search reveals nothing away from their own or other teams' websites and the article as also been tagged as possibly being non-notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable and no references. Lack of independent or reliable sources means that it is unlikely that it will ever be possible to reference the article.Pit-yacker (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly, British "American" football teams are not normally notable. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. As noted, there are a very few notable British university sports teams, but this does not seem to be one of them - unsurprisingly, since American football is very much a minority sport in the UK. Pfainuk talk 06:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable, as are 99.9% of UK university sports teams. Nuttah (talk) 20:19, 19 June 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. — Timneu22 · talk 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don Ritchie[edit]

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

In a nutshell: there is one article about this guy. I don't see how he's notable, significant, or important. — Timneu22 · talk 19:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not everyone gets a Medal of the Order of Australia --CatholicW (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What else can the article say? It's always going to be small... hey, this guy won a thing. He used to have blah job. Is that really worthy of inclusion? It seems it would be better to just have people listed here or elsewhere. — Timneu22 · talk 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, saving lives is unimportant and insignificant, and getting a medal for it only adds to its triviality. True, there is one article about this guy. And another and another and another and others. Now if he had played pro ball, that would be notable. Mandsford 19:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saving over 160 lives and being recognised with a national award smacks of notability. Especially when there is significant international coverage of his exploits to boot. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oops, I was the one who tagged it for speedy deletion. I forgot to read WP:ANYBIO at the time of this revision. He has won an award, and that explains why he is notable. The article improvement has a reference now which backs up most important point. Minima c (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:54, 17 June 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yii framework[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Could not find any reliable sources of note. Brought to AfD due to previous contested A7 speedy (though inappropriately placed). Millbrooky (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - another user, Iqbalsyamsu, has added material to the article since I nominated it for deletion. The article now has some primary sources, but still lacks third-party sources. --Millbrooky (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another try?
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yii → deleted
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yii Framework → deleted
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yii Framework (2nd nomination) → deleted
is it possible to protect the page from recreation or simply add the website to the spam list? --Peni (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability usually requires multiple, reliable sources. I found a reliable source (PHP Acrhitect) but it's a single source. So we need at least another reliable source. This source will be this [1] book from Packt Publishing, however while you can pre-order it, it's still unreleased (until August) so I'd say it's not acceptable now. Anyway, this article will definitely satisfy the notability requirement within 1-2 months, so "protect the page from recreation" would be a senseless measure. This article should probably be deleted now but recreated 1-2 months from now. ekerazha (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Books on Yii - http://www.packtpub.com/search?keys=yii&x=0&y=0

And the articles in PHP Acrhitect: http://www.phparch.com/?s=yii —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.199.50 (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per Joe Chill Codf1977 (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also SALT this as well as Yii and Yii Framework Codf1977 (talk) 13:44, 24 June 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur A. Stein[edit]

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

This professor does not seem to be notable. If anything, it seems like an autobiography. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable. The article simply needs wikifying as per tags. --Technopat (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the majority of the article as being a copyright violation - while it is factual information, how it is presented can still be copyrighted. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, highly cited political scientist, easily passes WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the only refs being to a magazine he's connected with, and to his own publication (and a link to his own website), I'm not so sure of the notability. How about getting it demonstrated? Peridon (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how it works -- notability is demonstrated by the available sources, not by the sources currently used on the article. To see what's available, use the searches linked above -- that's why they're there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why isn't more cited in the article? That's not reliable independent sourcing to my mind. That's 'in-house' stuff which can't establish notability. Peridon (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs expansion and attention of an expert, but the subject fairly clearly satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. Citability data in GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks is quite impressive. Also, several journal editorships including currently being an Editor of American Political Science Review, which is the number 1 publication in political science, in terms of prestige and the JCR impact factor. Nsk92 (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well-known political scientist. Article needs work, but subject is self-evidently prominent within his field as per editorship post and GoogleScholar stats.Minnowtaur (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar shows over 500 citations for his "Coordination and collaboration: regimes in an anarchic world", four publications with over 100 citations, and an h-index of around 14. I think that's enough for a pass of WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on past outcomes at AfD interpreting WP:PROF. In this case, an h index of 14, over 500 Ghits on Google scholar, many citations, and a full professor ranks as notable. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Meets requirements for notable academic Vartanza (talk) 08:18, 22 June 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 Outgoing longwave radiation. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earth radiation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article still has no real sources suggesting notability. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Manfred Curry. Artw (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE and lacks any compelling WP:RS. Verbal chat 18:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- and Redirect to Outgoing longwave radiation as real, notable, article. Verbal chat 16:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outgoing longwave radiation. Merge what little information there is to Manfred Curry - a lack of suitably reliable sources on the topic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this should be disambiguated from the radon gas threat. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outgoing longwave radiation, better solution. ~~Merge to Manfred Curry.~~ - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outgoing longwave radiation as probable search term. There is absolutely no information to merge to Manfred Curry and someone searching for the term is much more likely to want a mainstream science article instead of a biography on a fringer. -Atmoz (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outgoing longwave radiation as mainstream science. T3h 1337 b0y 21:57, 18 June 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. Several call of merge, but point made that there is little mergable information. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Celtics[edit]

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

Not notable. British University sports teams aren't generally notable. In most cases they have next to zero following even within their own institution. This team does not appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions. A search on Google returns only sites directly to the team and its rivals. Article is unreferenced and given the lack of independent sources, there is little prospect that it could be referenced. Equally, the fact that in the almost 5 years since its creation the article has had nothing more than a handful of non-trivial edits (There are about 2 which add "real" content, none of which have been in the last 3 years), indicates it is unlikely it ever will Pit-yacker (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a rare British University sports team that is notable even in majority sports - let alone teams that play minority sports such as American Football. This team does not seem to be one of those few exceptions to this rule. Pfainuk talk 18:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. per Pfainuk. per there are no notable third party citations to bolster notability. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In most cases, University sports teams aren't known in their own campus, never mind off it. I am unable to find anything that this team - in what is a minority sport in the United Kingdom - is any different. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into University of Leeds#Leeds University Sport. A summary could be added to the university article. Cjc13 (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much that's merge-able. Right now this team, along with most other sports teams in the same situation, doesn't get a mention at all, so anything more than a link to the words "American football" as an example of a sport played at Leeds would seem to be undue coverage. Pfainuk talk 16:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Problem with a merge is that it merely shifts the problem of the inability to verify the topic to the University of Leeds article. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about the merger of the info in the first paragraph and leaving a redirect. There are websites BUAFL and Leeds Celtic which support the info. Cjc13 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to that article, Leeds University has either thirty-six or sixty different sports clubs. Whichever, most of those sports aren't even mentioned in the Leeds University article. Certainly, none of them gets a paragraph to itself. I see little reason to assume that American football is a special case. So, putting anything more than the words "American football" in that article would seem to give undue weight to the American football team.

Incidentally, the 36-60 discrepancy seems to come about because Leeds University Students Union have a bizarrely restrictive definition of a "sports club" - excluding, for example, martial arts and most watersports clubs. Pfainuk talk 21:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Leeds#Athletics as non-notable and badly in need of merging, if possible. T3h 1337 b0y 22:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable, as are 99.9% of UK university sports teams. Nuttah (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Nuttah Codf1977 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 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. –MuZemike 01:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Child of Eden[edit]

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

Forthcoming computer game. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an argument copied from the talk page, it makes the point well:

""No evidence of notability"? What is the criteria for notability of a video game? Why has the aforementioned Amphibian Man (video game) been allowed to be remain an almost contentless stub while this one - which is actually better - is going to be deleted for its pains? It's published by Ubisoft and is one of the few games announced to be controlled by the new Kinect and Playstation Move systems, and has been noted by several several external sources. I'm sure the article will improve as more information is forthcoming. I'm going rogue and am replacing the deletion notice with the "this article may not meet the notability guidelines for products and services" template, as featured on the even less notable The Exiled Realm of Arborea. 86.158.216.107 (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

Squogfloogle (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Q Entertainment. The criteria for notability of a video game is the general notability guideline, which asks for significant coverage. At the moment we just have press package regurgitation and a rough release date of Q1 next year. As it is verifiable, we should follow WP:PRODUCT and redirect to the company. Marasmusine (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Q Entertainment's (to be created) section of the game. Not because of its lack of notability, but simple sparsity of information. Although there are many references, they all state the same 3-4 facts, so this article is not likely to lose its stub status until later this year. Once the information is there, it can be moved out of Q's article.Elideb (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is notable. http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/06/ubisoft-e3-liveblog/ http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/06/14/children-of-eden-its-rez-all-over-again-but-better/ http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/109/1098711p1.html http://www.joystiq.com/2010/06/15/mizuguchi-child-of-eden-to-support-standard-controllers/ examiner.com/x-31345-Video-Game-Examiner~y2010m6d15-Ubisoft-conference-impressions --Rajah (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Q Entertainment game Ninety-Nine Nights II is in a similar state. Enough information is available to make the presence of the page worthwhile. Squogfloogle (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The game was showcased as one of Ubisoft's major 2010 games and has been covered multiple times in the video game media, therefore sources or notability is not an issue. The article might have been lacking in a few references, but they are there, we just need to include them in the article. For comparison, see similar games that were announced at E3 this year and which each have well-referenced, large articles. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 14:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. If I'm allowed to vote as an IP, that is. 86.158.216.107 (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no :> Yes, IPs can add to the discussion; but no, it's not a vote. Marasmusine (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHOOPS 86.158.216.107 (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion is not a vote, it's a discussion. IP's can add to this discussion but there input will probably carry less weight than member's input. --Deathawk (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep=It's essentially the sequel to Rez which was somewhat of a cult classic in the video game comunity. Also it opened the UBI Soft Press Conferance meaning it's a big priority for them.--Deathawk (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable game covered in various media. Kyle1278 03:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough secondary sources already available to pass WP:N. Someone another 11:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of press coverage, debute trailer, Won an E3 top 10 award from Videogamer (http://www.videogamer.com/features/article/22-06-2010-1142.html), Shigeru Freaking Miyamoto asked for a personal demo http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4332091&l=f1d358e6c9&id=288356356543. Lots more press coverage and info than some other E3 titles like Kid Icarus. 81.149.182.210 (talk) 21:40, 22 June 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) 00:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War Painting[edit]

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

Non-notable something. The style and self-congratulatory nature of the article make it difficult to know just what this "thing" that artist William Quigley created should be called, but given its lack of coverage in any media, it doesn't appear to be notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although William Quigley seems to have attracted enough notoriety to have an article of his own [2], this LeRoyNeimanesque series of American Civil War paintings seems to have escaped notice [3]. Wikipedia may have an art gallery, but it is not an art studio. Mandsford 19:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Delete The article is insufferably precious and nauseating in its writing, full of terms such as "languid glamorama," and absolute word salad gibberish, but that falls under the need for editing rather than the question of notability. It does not appear to be "spam" by attempting to sell the artworks in question. Quigley seems a talented and innovative artist, and the work(s) could be mentioned in a better written article about him. Per his web site [4] under "Articles" Quigley has had coverage in a number of reliable sources.Edison (talk) 19:39, 23 June 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. That seems to be the rough consensus so far. Further discussions about merging can be discussed on the talk pages. –MuZemike 00:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oobleck[edit]

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

Dr. Seuss' use of the term is already covered in Bartholomew and the Oobleck. The rest of the article is essentially a how-to guide, and Wikipedia is not a cookbook or instruction manual. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bartholomew and the Oobleck. The only notable definition is already found at that article. Tavix | Talk 17:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (see below) ~~Weak keep~~ . We need some sort of article covering the substances known variously as Oobleck and Glurch (and goop and gloop) which are regularly used as demonstration material in all levels of education (from primary to post-secondary). There are lots of .edu sources available, which should provide the necessary references. However, the substances themselves should be the primary topic matter of this article, with only an explanatory note about the Seussian inspiration (linking to the Bartholomew article for details). It probably needs a more encompassing (and accurate) title, too, to properly cover these various substances; I'm not sure what that title would be, and I don't have the expertise to do the overhaul required. I'll leave a note at the chemistry project, to see if anyone there has time/ideas for input. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —-- Quiddity (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bartholomew and the Oobleck. The discussion of the properties of the substance can be deal with at Non-Newtonian_fluid#Common_examples. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That might work, if the content at Non-Newtonian_fluid can be improved to encompass oobleck and glurch. Then add a hatnote at Bartholomew and the Oobleck pointing readers to the other link, if they're looking for the substance itself. I'll add merge tags, to get more input. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there's enough coverage of the real-life substance (a common science lesson in schools) to warrant a stub. See this book in particular, along with its appearance as a class project in numerous others. Them From Space 20:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bartholomew_and_the_Oobleck. --EEMIV (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our coverage of popular culture issues is one point which marks Wikipedia out from more traditional encyclopedias, so I don't think we should destroy that bit of competitive advantage. Why shouldn't some kid type Oobleck and get an article about this fictitious substance? An article that tells him or her that it is fictitious, that it doesn't exist outside of books, but telling them the properties it's supposed to have according to the books... (hell, I can think of a couple of mainsteam chemistry articles we do that for: 1 2!) Physchim62 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The substance is not fictitious. You can make it in your kitchen (you should! it's fun and educational. 2-parts corn starch and 1-part water). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oobleck is not fictional! The name is given to a simple but effective science experiment especially suited for children. It is part of the category Category:Chemistry classroom experiments where you will find experiments with other silly names like the barking dog reaction. Do you really want kids redirected to Non-Newtonian_fluid ? The real substance should preside over its fictional origins though V8rik (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Everybody's talking past each other. This is a real substance, that's really made in thousands upon thousands of middle school, high school and university chemistry labs every year. Obviously notable. Its fictional namesake is probably notable as well, and obviously deserves discussion in this article, but this is the real thing.Minnowtaur (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the above comments note, the term is used for a real substance. It is taken from the Dr. Seuss book but is not the same thing as the original reference; the article should be separate.- DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the four above posts. Not a 'how-to' - that's a definition. (I grew up without hearing of Dr Seuss and wish that I had encountered those books back then.) Peridon (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I first nominated this article for AFD, it was a how-to. You might want to check the archives. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two sections into Bartholomew and the Oobleck and Non-Newtonian fluid respectively (although I think the relevant information is already present there), and replace by a disambiguation page, as in the box. The two different uses of the word "Oobleck" have nothing in common to justify this article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oobleck can refer to:

a fictional green precipitation invented by children's author Dr. Seuss in the book Bartholomew and the Oobleck.
a non-Newtonian fluid made from 2 parts corn starch to 1 part water

I see someone else has boldly done a merge. Consequently, I've boldly implemented this suggestion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge per Radagast. (Disambiguation pages are generally not used for just 2 items, but it makes sense in this case as neither target is an exact match). ~~I (or anyone) should try to find some reliable sources for Glurch (currently a redirect to oobleck) which is a separate substance. It should also be merged to Non-Newtonian fluid.~~ (Done) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:19, 21 June 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kips Bay Towers[edit]

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

Unremarkable, er, building. No mention of notability, no reliable refs. I'd have CSD'd it if A7 had a "buildings" category :) Etrigan (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a condo, without even any claims of notability - the two refs given looks like they're just real estate promos. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep after excellent work done by ϋrбanяeneωaℓ -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ There are a lot of sources that I could come up with that verify existence but I'm not seeing a whole lot of verifying notability. The NY Times article is really throwing me off but due to the fact that it is in the real estate section, I'm seeing that as more of ad space than a legit article. Tavix | Talk 17:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Keep because of the information and references that User:Urbanrenewal came up with. Nice job! Tavix | Talk 20:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a massive residential complex and it is a notable architectural item from the 1960s brutalist era. There are thousands of people living here as many people as in small towns that are included. A quick search of the NYTimes (Also) reveals references in more than 40 articles with a number of the articles featuring the development / architecture / history as well as recent events. I would strongly support keeping it. I will add some quick refs to prove my point |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at the article now with changes incorporated.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 18:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm rather tempted to withdraw the AFD based on the work you've done, but I still don't see any assertion of Notability. I'm definitely wavering... Etrigan (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't really understand your comment. The article lacked context originally but I don't know how you could possible say it is not notable in the face of all of the third party discussion. It is a huge building that has been written about and referenced extensively built by I.M. Pei. Just the fact that Pei built it probably means it is significant architecturally. This is a pretty obvious keep now. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 21:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because the "Significant Coverage" part of WP:NOTE hasn't yet been met I feel: specifically "...sources that address the subject directly in detail". All of the citations so far, except arguably the first, fail that test, and the first is only an opinion on the aesthetics of the building. Most of them are mere news pieces about things happening in the vicinity of the block. Where's the big reputable article all about the building itself? Etrigan (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep - Prominent building, housing thousands of people, designed by one of the world's most famous architects, dozens of articles about it in the world's newspaper of record. Pieces on the "aesthetics of the building" are reputable articles about the building itself.Minnowtaur (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very large housing projects (estates in British English) are usually but not always kept. This is a housing project in Manhattan that is frequently in the New York Times due to its location, scope/size, and population of four thousand or more people. I think those facts make it notable. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 21 June 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/userfy per request of sole author. Userfied to User:Paulmcdonald/2010 KCAC Football Season.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Tabor Bluejays football team[edit]

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

A particular year's college football team is not notable unless it's covered independently (Brown's "Iron Men" team from the early 1900s, for example). Besides, the season hasn't happened yet, so this is something of a WP:CRYSTAL vio... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Userfy It's common practice for many teams to have season articles. It's a major "stub" article now, but the articles are often prepped in advance because schedule and other topics come available.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Not withdrawing, though -- if it's deleted, you can ask for it to be moved into your userspace until later. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You posted the AfD in good faith, let's go through the process and make Wikipedia better. (like the "point take" trick above though!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thought it might be better to have an article called 2010 Kansas Collegiate Athletic Conference football season ?? It would be one article, more of a "catch-all" and for a smaller conference might be easier to maintain... hmmm... --Paul McDonald (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Tabor is a NAIA college which is pretty far from the upper ranks of college football. Do other NAIA colleges normally get articles about their seasons, or is that done mostly for the major colleges? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not normally, but it also depends on the program, the coach, etc. This coach has three season articles and typically has coached teams that have been nationally ranked. Still, the more I look at it the more I think maybe a season article for the entire conference would suffice--thinking on that one some more. Also, it's not necessarily that other teams don't have season articles but that there are only so many in the college football project and enthusiasm/manpower come into play.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy -- with everyone's permission, I'd like to userfy this page to Paulmcdonald\2010 KCAC Football Season and work on it from there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:43, 18 June 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cullather[edit]

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

Contested PROD - Non-notable per WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, strong WP:Conflict of interest by creator. Codf1977 (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Codf1977 - I wanted to start the discussion with you about the current status of the article I wrote on Scott Cullather. I tried to keep the article factual and notable, while nonpromotional, and I as well as other editors have made changes to make it more notable. One of the other issues with the page was the sources. The flag claims that the entry is lacking reputable sources. However, the references included are from influential, well-known event industry publications. Those people that pay close attention to the live events industry and read about it in industry magazines will see how Scott is frequently interviewed and quoted.

My hope is that we can keep this conversation going so that I can clean the page up to the point where it won't be deleted and it will meet all Wikipedia's guidelines for being an informative, useful article. I'd love to incorporate specific feedback you have about the page so it will better conform to guidelines. Thanks! Andrew rodger (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - simply not enough coverage to substantiate notability. One nomination for an Emmy is not enough to confer notability on a subject. Andrew rodger, the problem essentially concerns whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources of Cullather - at the moment, it seems clear that there's coverage in reliable sources, but it's simply not significant enough. Claritas § 20:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback Claritas. How much more coverage would make the cut as "significant"? I'm trying to keep the article short and factual and it has eight references from reliable resources (including NYTimes.com). Thanks! Andrew rodger (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"sources address the subject directly in detail are needed, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." - Claritas § 07:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that the article was speedied G11 (blatant spam) the day before, after its creation by the same editor. This version is toned down a bit, but notability per WP:BIO has not been established, and I can find no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. The two new editors who've contributed this time are WP:Single purpose accounts, and two accounts bear the names of staff from Matter Communications, a P.R. firm that handles communications for the subject and his company inVNT [5][6][7]: an evident strong WP:Conflict of interest. This alone isn't grounds for deletion, but it explains the WP:PROMO marketing tone. Empty Buffer (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : There is also a AfD on his company inVNT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InVNT. Codf1977 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem too notable, i.e. hasn't achieved much of note (despite the mentioned sources). Also reads like a promo piece. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : should also add that Andrew rodger, the editor who created the article has confirmed (see here) that he works for inVNT's PR agency. Codf1977 (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. --JaGa^talk 22:42, 18 June 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reed (Catholic priest)[edit]

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

Paid article, very little in the way of independent sourcing. No apparent independent assertion of notability.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. I brought this up at WP:COIN along with another article. The paid-editing job can be seen here. Them From Space 17:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this also appears to be a copyright violation of his page on catholictv.com (funny how the official site has already found and linked to this article!) [8] Also, the coverage mentioned below doesn't seem significant enough for a standalone article. The first is a news story on his position, its more about CatholicTV than Robert Reed. The NPR piece isn't about him at all. Them From Space 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~; the initial formatting was pretty horrible, but it does have multiple independent sources (The Patriot Ledger and NPR). - Fayenatic (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC) -- Now three (Boston Globe). 17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I have broken any Wikipedia rules, but I can't find anything that says authors aren't allowed to be paid for their contributions. I consider that I have written a non-biased and non-promotional article - if anyone disagrees then I welcome constructive criticism as to how I can make it better - I am fairly inexperienced with Wikipedia so I confess (Father Reed...confession...gettit?) that I do need some help. It would be a shame to delete my contributions as I do think they add value to Wikipedia. Missylisa153 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I have cleaned up the links - you were right, they were a bit messy, sorry. Is this sufficient to get the deletion tag removed? Missylisa153 (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Based on his being the Director of The CatholicTV Network, I think that is probably sufficient notability (but only weak, because I'm not sure). And a couple of comments: 1) While I generally don't like the idea of paid Wikipedia writing as it can introduce bias, it's not prohibited and a paid article is not automatically biased - it is possible to be paid to write and to do so in an unbiased manner, and I believe the author has attempted to do that. 2) The references are not strong - they are multiple, but as most are from Catholic sources, they're perhaps not really independent. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that they're Catholic sources, but that they're either CatholicTV or Diocese of Boston sources. If other dioceses were reporting on him, that would tend to add notability... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a third independent citation (Boston Globe), with a NPOV angle which I think helps to balance the article. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I had a good look for anything in independent sources (using Google news archive) which might have been less than flattering about the subject, or substance for a "criticisms" or "controversy" section, but found nothing. So even though the initial sources were provided by the payer, I'm satisfied as an experienced NPOV editor that the article is not missing published information that would be necessary to provide a balanced opinion. (Still needs further tidying up, though.) - Fayenatic (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The cited sources demonstrate that the CatholicTV Network is notable, but the incidental mentions of Reed do not demonstrate that he is notable. The article also reads more like a press release than a NPOV bio, which isn't surprising, given that the article was written in breach of WP:COI#Promotional article production on behalf of clients. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient secondary coverage to establish notability. Of the independent sources, the Patriot Ledger article is a routine announcement, and the others are interviewing/quoting him as a representative of Catholic TV. They do not cover the subject himself directly in detail, as specified by WP:GNG. Cassandra 73 (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Having done some work to improve an article which I incorrectly judged should survive, I've made a copy offline and may add some of the material to CatholicTV if (when) this is deleted. Mind you, does that mean that merge and redirect is the correct outcome, to preserve the contribution history? - Fayenatic (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I disagree that the article reads like a press release and would urge others to re-read the article as changes have been made and new references added in the last couple of days. Secondly, to challenge the POV that Father Reed is not notable, here's a discussion I found - I'm not sure if it's enough to use as a reference, but it certainly demonstrates that in Catholic circles, Father Reed is well respected and noted. Also, while I understand that Father Reed is used as a spokesperson for Catholic TV, this goes hand in hand with his role as director for the station. I would think that being such a prominent figure in the company, as well as being a game show, talk show and TV show host, makes him notable. Missylisa153 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS points to what counts as "reliable sources" for Wikipedia; broadsheets and academic coverage are good, forums or blogs are not. Although I tried to help by improving the article, I think that Cassandra73 is applying Wikipedia's policies correctly. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More references added! Missylisa153 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New sources are a press release and schedules for conventions he's spoken at, and a blog for a radio show on The Catholic Channel he appeared on to discuss CatholicTV (it mentions that the hosts of that show also have a show on CatholicTV) - still short of the significant coverage needed, so I'm standing by my previous comment although I wouldn't oppose a merge/redirect to CatholicTV as suggested by Fayenatic. Cassandra 73 (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that's better than nothing, thanks! :) Missylisa153 (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC) PS I've rewritten the copyrighted content to hopefully make it sufficiently different Missylisa153 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete CatholicTV Network is notable per the coverage provided, but the coverage of Mr. Reed independent of that is thin. Even with the improvements, this still reads like a puff piece....Turning water into wine is difficult for mere Wikipedians. Vartanza (talk) 12:07, 24 June 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) 00:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Propulsion[edit]

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

Unreferenced OR misunderstanding about the physics of jet propulsion, strangely, jet propulsion does not permit perpetual motion machines. Please vote Speedy delete. - Wolfkeeper 15:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Original "research" claiming that jet propulsion represents perpetual motion based on a lack of understanding of underlying physical principles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and WP:BOLLOCKS. andy (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete~~, but not Speedy~~: It's bollocks all right, but there's no Speedy category for that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, but it's going to snow.- Wolfkeeper 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fair enough -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there ought to be a ((db-bollocks)) template. A close cousin to db-nonsense - it looks like English but effectively has no meaning. andy (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - blatant hoax. Claritas § 16:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-encyclopedic subject, at best incomprehensible, at worst a hoax. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, and per Ahunt's comments. It's very hot here today, so some SNOW would be nice! - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, near speedy - Just a hoax, junk, garbage, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as high a speed as we can attain using actual physics rather than a non/self-cited load of crap or content-fork of existing perpetual-motion pages (iff this particular flavor of crap were notable). DMacks (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SNOWed; I'm calling snow.- Wolfkeeper 00:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. All OR and mostly likely a hoax.--Oakshade (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable pseudoscience. Edward321 (talk) 14:06, 20 June 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) 00:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feasters[edit]

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

Article was declined CSD A7, after user removed "is a leading manufacturer" from intro. Even without this text, this company is not notable. The article includes only:

A list of products
A link to its Facebook
A link to its Twitter
A link to its website

There is no third-party coverage, and not even a single ref. Borderline promotion article, but no references at all and no attempt at coverage or significance are the primary AFD reasons. — Timneu22 · talk 15:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 17 June 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerpulse[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable website: no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I am unable to find any. Previously deleted at AFD in 2006, and nothing seems to have changed since then to make it more notable. Robofish (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A poor article with WP:PUFF and WP:COI issues, but a pared-back version might be usuable. They seemed to have 10s of 1000s of users and have plenty of hits on google (which doesn't conver notability in and of itself, before anyone chirps in). The Daily Star and FourFourTwo satisfy WP:RS and they apparently present people from the forum as 'experts'.Eliteimp (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the Daily Star reference? It's this: [9] The mention of Soccerpulse there is trivial. I admit I haven't seen the FourFourTwo mention, but here's how the article describes it: 'A post by a Soccerpulse moderator, BlitzR, was published in the February 2008 issue of Four Four Two in an article on fans response to a top 100 players list the magazine had compiled'. That sounds like they published a letter by a member of the forum, not an article about it. That's not sufficient for WP:RS. Robofish (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can say the references are not significant or trivial but they are national publications who deliberately sought out and printed the views of people from this forum. Presumably 'Barca4life's ramblings would not have made it into the Star, but for the authority bestowed by his affiliation with Soccerpulse. There's also no requirement for reliable sources to be entirely about the subject . Eliteimp (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hundreds of football forums exist, I see no reason why this one is notable above those. Giant Snowman 21:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources for this article may be reliable, but the coverage is too trivial, in my opinion, to pass WP:N. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have seen nothing but trivial coverage of this forum. – Pee Jay 15:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Forums are iffy issues. --MicroX (talk) 06:49, 23 June 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. –MuZemike 00:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Mumbai[edit]

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

WP is not a directory or a travel guide. Codf1977 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are lots article like List of hotels of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, List of largest hotels in the world, List of hotels in Dubai, List of Las Vegas Strip hotels and so on, Also there are more than 50% of names in the list having there own articles. If anything is required to make this article more suitable let me know, I will improve it. KuwarOnline ^Talk 15:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is pretty well referenced and everything there is verifiable. Only notable hotels are on the list and for having over thirty hotels on that list, it shows that it is obviously a notable topic. Tavix | Talk 17:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was only notable hotels then you may have a point - but it is not. Codf1977 (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are notable. Just because a couple of them are redlinked does not make my point invalid. Redlinks help article growth... Tavix | Talk 20:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think they are - see analysis below. Codf1977 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment below notwithstanding, removing non-notable entries can be done by editing, and therefore it is not a valid reason to delete, per deletion policy.--Cyclopia ^talk 18:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - KuwarOnline (talk · contribs) is currently attempting to votestack by canvassing editors (like me) that would probably argue for keeping (I would do in fact, but now that I've been canvassed I feel uncomfortable doing that): see [10] , [11], [12], [13]. I think the editor is somehow in good faith in seeking for help, but better to explain him that he's just shooting himself in the foot this way. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -I was doing what called Friendly notices not only editor who supported keep but also the editors who supported delete see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Software Companies in India but unfortunately you just noticed keep editors see User talk:Sodabottle, User talk:Deepak D'Souza who supported delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Software Companies in India, Certainly I am not doing attempting to votestack or neither I asked any editor to vote in my favor. Just asked to vote as per there view please see there talk pages, where i m requesting them to express there suggestions/opinion. Please dont feel that you are being canvassed. KuwarOnline ^Talk 18:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notwithstanding the alleged votestacking- I am kind of neutral, swaying towards delete on articles with names in the following format "List of <type of business> in <city>". IT industry in India is a different thing. The best thing to do is to write an article called Hotels in Mumbai and merge the list to that article. I wouldn't mind a fork if required later.--^Nilotpal42 19:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - most of them are blue links. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But not to articles about the given hotels :

Of the 41 Hotels listed only FIVE have there own article :

Taj Mahal Palace & Tower also listed as Taj Lands End and Taj President
JW Marriott, Mumbai
Courtyard by Marriott Mumbai
Oberoi Trident
Four Seasons Hotel Mumbai

THREE point to WP articals un-related to India or Mumbai

Ambassador Hotel - to a hotel in LA
Palms Hotel - is in Nevada
The Retreat - is a 'place in England for the treatment of people with mental health needs. '

THIRTEEN point to articles about the company that owns the hotel.

the other EIGHTEEN hotels listed have no links or a 'red-links'. Codf1977 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but again, deletion policy tells us that this is absolutely not a reason to delete. At best, your analysis indicates the need to merge into a larger list, like List of hotels in India. All you tell us about is that the article has problems. We don't delete article which have problems solvable with editing -we fix them. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did look for a page as a suitable merge target but there was not one - and felt that editing out the non-notable hotels and having a list of five or six and then nom for AfD would be bad form. If some one with more insight into the subject wishes to create such a target will be happy with mergeing into it. Codf1977 (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up. See WP:STAND. The references are all links to the hotels and should be removed.Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on the merits of this article other than the fact that it should clearly cite which standards are being used. Which organizations gave these hotels five-star ratings? Them From Space 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge information about the hotels and hotel chains in the city into Economy of Mumbai, but delete the star ratings. This page is a travel guide as it is currently constituted (something Wikipedia is not), and it is difficult to imagine how it could be rewritten to be anything other than a travel guide. On the other hand, the city's hotels are a notable element of the local economy that can appropriately be listed in the "Economy" article, but the star ratings are purely "travel guide" content that does not belong there. --Orlady (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keepbut star rating should be removed.It's just an informative article, not any travel guide.Everybody please take a look at List of hotels in Dubai.It's just same kind of article like List of hotels in Mumbai.If it is kept on Wikipedia, then List of hotels in Mumbai must be kept.$Max Viwe$ (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The existence of other similar articles is not a valid basis for keeping an article. The question to be asked is whether the articles are consistent with Wikipedia policy. --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 20 June 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 as A7 by TFOWR (talk · contribs). Tony Fox (arf!) 16:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black veil brides (band)[edit]

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

Speedily deleted on _ten_ prior occasions over last two years under title Black veil brides. Recommend that speedy deletion be avoided this time and article be deleted pursuant to this discussion so that future speedys can be under G4 to stop the drama. Also recommend salting Black veil brides and current article. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with every word TransporterMan says. Jusdafax 15:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree, and this version may be a copyvio. Google says that 'Black Veil Brides is a five-piece American metalcore band from Los Angeles' is copyvio from Facebook, but I wasn't able to determine where that text appeared on the page. The website for the band linked from facebook was a dead URL clearinghouse. Syrthiss (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]. Joe Chill (talk) 16:17, 17 June 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 (which defaults to keep). Even if I completely disregarded all commentary from all single-purpose accounts (and similarly those with arguments to avoid), I am not seeing any rough consensus for deletion purely amongst registered and established users. –MuZemike 01:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer One[edit]

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

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

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

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

There is no evidence of notability. The article cites no sources except for a site where the film is available for download. Web searches have likewise produced a few download sites, facebook, linkedin, a forum post etc, but nothing that could be regarded as a reliable independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to delete it please watch it yourself first before deleting —Preceding unsigned comment added by General Staal (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to comment that simply watching a certain film does not make it notable, although I'd probably wait a little bit before nominating it for deletion before it even has a chance. Tavix | Talk 17:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seen multiple mentions of it on the web - piratebay.org, slashdot (on their newsletter too), Downloadsquad. It's the first of it's kind, and I actually came to wikipedia to read what it's about. I'm sure there's more like me who want some neutral reference page as-to what this show is. --24.36.97.44 (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When I search the web I find several articles about it. Plus, the principle of torrent-based distribution is some kind of a "premiere" for a TV serie, and this is IMO a sufficient reason for a wiki article... Bornerdogge (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Bornerdogge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: This is the first movie made for distribution over torrents. This is notable in itself. A previous artist, The Future Sounds of London, did a similar notable project when they released their ISDN album over ISDN (rather than via CD). [19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.166.192 (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First TV show released over BitTorrent, not first movie. The first movie released entirely over BitTorrent would probably be The Lionshare. 24.247.162.139 (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's laudable and interesting to have a torrent-based tv show, but it doesn't seem to have racked up much public interest, so until it does, I'd say delete. The individual artistic merits of the show should be irrelevent to Wikipedia policy, only it's cultural impact is important. Otherwise Wikipedia is being used as an advertising medium for generating interest where there currently isn't any. Gymnophoria (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that I created this article only after watching the show. I am not affiliated with the project. Also, you can not prevent Wikipedia generating interest for the subjects of its articles. And I don't see why you have this strict rule anyways. According to this logic you would delete Van Gogh's entry if he lived today.General Staal (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: As a fan of the project (haven't watched it yet, but am currently downloading it), I do think it's notable in that it's the first TV series released purely through Bittorrent channels (that I can find, at least). But I recognize that it hasn't had much attention outside of the Bittorrent community (Torrentfreak, VODO, etc.) and no one knows yet how well it will be received, so I'm not sure if its "historical moment" notability is enough to keep it. (former Wikipedian here, so I know the policies) But I'm leaning more toward keep. I did a little work on the article and tried to find some more references/links, if that's any help. 24.247.162.139 (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep: after reading some of the arguments here, as well as seeing the continued and growing response to it this morning, I'm changing to keep. At this point, I definitely think the article has been adequately sourced to keep it. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further clarification, and a request that everyone stop saying "Keep because I like it", because that is a worthless argument on Wikipedia: I've just been looking at the page as it was when it was nominated, and the page as it is now. It's definitely come a long way from one rather poor reference and a synopsis ripped from the official site to a more in-depth article with eight references. At this point, I don't think the question is whether or not it's verifiable or adequately sourced, it's about whether it's WP:NN. So two things: first of all, all the single-purpose accounts here need to realize that this is not about whether or not the show is good. Second, I think we can dispense with the lingering questions of verifiability. Pioneer One exists, lots of people downloaded it, and lots of people liked it. The only question I see remaining is, is that enough for notability? I believe it is. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: (from 24.247.162.139; I finally gave up and just made an account per WP:CLEANSTART. If I'm going to keep editing like I am, I might as well have an account...) I don't remember this ever coming up before, but is TorrentFreak considered a reliable source? Pioneer One has been mentioned extensively there. It's also been promoted by VODO, which although releasing the pilot, isn't actually connected to the creation of Pioneer One. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is now available for direct download and streaming on several sites (the sites are listed on SideReel.com), and while I had already heard of the title, the ONLY place I could find any useful information about the project itself was on Wikipedia. Also, the first two minutes of the film is a promo encouraging the creation of similar projects for free distribution (via the competition on mofilm.com), in case that is a good reason to keep it listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.152.143 (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not necessarily reason enough to keep the article, though. Wikipedia's not for promotion of anything, even good things like freely distributed projects, and it's not supposed to be the only source of anything. It's an encyclopedia and thus a tertiary source, meaning it relies purely on outside information, not a secondary source that reports on something. We need to find more outside sources talking about Pioneer One for the article to be adequately sourced. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if deleted redirect to the spaceprobe Pioneer 1 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I saw this film mentioned elsewhere and then immediately went to Wikipedia to look it up (as I do whenever I hear about about a film that sounds interesting). I don't see how this is any different to Wikipedia having entries for mainstream studio films before they have actually been released and become culturally important. The only difference is that there is an established promotional infrastructure which can be exploited by mainstream studios to make sure any film they release is 'notable'. I would say that the novel distribution method and connected aims (first 'TV show' distributed via BitTorrent) make it notable by definition. Dr.Jamf (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Dr.Jamf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: At the very least give it some time for mainstream media to pick up the story. I think this is a fairly notable source: examiner.com/x-36170-Binghamton-Frugal-Living-Examiner~y2010m6d16-Free-television-Download-the-Pioneer-One-pilot-from-VODO. Also, I'm willing to bet there are other shows on Wikipedia with less than 450,000 viewers that are considered notable. Spikeman (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:It's a little outrageous to submit this article for deletion on grounds it lacks "sufficient public interest in the show" the very same day the article is created and literally days after the show was released. Maybe in a few months it could have been legitimate. Now with the show being advertised on the front page of thepiratebay.org it's certain this article will see lots of traffic. It also has the novelty of being the first series to ever attempt distributing just on torrents. That alone is enough to justify an article. The implication that this deletion submission was malicious or had ulterior motives wouldn't be unfounded. (I made the same comment in the discussion page)122.17.159.71 (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Gray from GeekChique.org here: I would say it's notability is likely to rise now that it is the big image on the front of the Pirate Bay. Given that it is a brand new release, I would also suggest that comments about it not being big news may be because it hasn't had enough time to hit BBC, CNN, etc. 159.15.67.78 (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "not being big news may be because it hasn't had enough time to hit BBC, CNN, etc." Please see WP:CRYSTAL. Note to new and anon posters: This is not a vote by numbers. You may support the article, but you must give good reasons - good by the standards of Wikipedia policy - for this. Liking it or it having a potential for notability are not good reasons. Yes, we would possibly delete Van Gogh's article unless sufficient notability had been shown - and he had more during his lifetime than is commonly assumed. This is an encyclopaedia, not a TV guide or a news review. "The implication that this deletion submission was malicious or had ulterior motives wouldn't be unfounded" - from what I know of the work here of the nominator, I would say definitely unfounded. The episode is a pilot. Pilots may become notable when the series takes off or for the presence of notable people/production/direction. Is the first thing released on DVD notable enough to have an article purely on that ground? (Substitute CD, VHS, whatever.) Peridon (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable and promotional. GregJackP (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reply where is the article promotional ? I'd l ike to fix it-Tavin (talk)— Tavin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep the show have been featured on the homepage of several important websites like thepiratebay.org (Alexa's 100), eztv.it, etc. Faustop (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)— Faustop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- also it is been featured on utorrent.com (most popular bittorrent client in the world), and apparently is downloaded automatically when you install the software. (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- the show is not even a week old, it takes e.g. newspapers some time to find the story write about it and print it.
- it's a new concept and for that reson a pioneer on that field, for that reson of encyclopedial interest

-Tavin (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)— Tavin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That is a good reason for deletion.... Peridon (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete and recreate as soon as mainstream covers it is the wikipedia policy? If so, where can I look that up? -Tavin (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)— Tavin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Seems like it'll be a pretty big deal very soon and the article is good. I don't see why it should be deleted now only to be remade in a few days or weeks. User:General_Staal is just a fan who saw the show and created an article for it. If this is deleted it'll just be remade again by the next fan who sees the show has no article. I for one would definitely write it. Torrent Freak also wrote a good article on it, I'd suggest reading it before casting a vote. 187.39.75.70 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really don't see why, read WP:CRYSTAL. I wish the creator of the show luck, and would have no objection to re-creation of the article - when/if the show is a success. Till then, we can't just have an article for every maybe or wannabe. Peridon (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you determine "success"? And more importantly, who have the power to do so? We already do have articles on most TV shows and films, how is this one different? There is no "no independent founding" policy, so far. Agent L (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely keep, tv show as any other + notability it's being funded online. toxygen (talk)

Keep The torrent of the first episode has more than 9000 seeders by now. Isin't this enough notability? Jogundas Armaitis (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this pilot episode is now widely available through multiple channels, and it appears to have reached tens of thousands of watchers. It is interesting to have it inside Wikipedia because it constitutes one of the early examples of crowd-financed fiction media, and because it was one of the first (if not the first) to go directly for BitTorrent distribution as the prime channel. It can (and will) be seen as an example of a new way to produce content - of course we don't know how successful the whole idea we will be, so we don't know if Pioneer One is like the first CD ever made (of billions) or rather like the first (of very few) ground effect vehicle. At the same time, if we can have a page for Larry Walters, I think we can afford a page about PioneerOne -- baffo —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep but rewrite and change angle. Or *Delete and wait. This works much better as "Pioneer One _was_/_is_ an attempt to make a (television series) using a free-to-torrent model instead of distributing through traditional channels." It is noteable for its experimental distribution process - this should be the angle of the entry. Remove all marketing lingo. That is all. But if you view it as one of many tries for the same goal; it is not noteable at all.84.211.53.251 (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an early/the first significant torrent only distribution of a professionally produced series (jobbing actors as opposed to amateurs). Due to the fact that uTorrent and Pirate Bay are pushing the download (uTorrent making it part of their setup routine) is it likely that this pilot will be remembered as either "the first successful" or "an early attempt" at distribution of a professionally produced TV series exclusively via Torrent. If the laudable fan production Star Trek - Hidden Frontier can have a page, surely Pioneer One can. The article is to the point and informative without being overly promotional. Isn't one of the virtues of Wikipedia, that newly emerging subjects can be covered quickly? If the article is accurate, on a subject that is at least emerging as notable, why should it be deleted? In full disclosure, I know one of the actors appearing, but that is not the reason for this post. Like many people with actor friends, I though of it as just another project he's got himself tied up with... I was driven to look up the article and then visit this discussion, when the uTorrent install on my new Netbook prompted me to download the episode. The joy of Wikipedia is being able to do just that. Given that many people will see this series marketed elsewhere on the web and come to Wikipeida for information, getting the response "There were no results matching the query" on Wikipedia would be unfortunate. In my opinion: accurate + emerging as notable + early example of type = usefull and keep Johnrb (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC) JohnRB — Johnrb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Not for it being a low-funds TV series, as it is not exceptional in that respect, but for its attempt at being successful through Torrent distribution. This notability is also mentioned prominently in the article, but if it's not pointed out enough, it could be improved rather than deleted. The main reason for its notability is that we see a huge effort on the side of traditional media distribution groups against P2P networking as a concept. They essentially argue that P2P is different by not being tightly controllable and therefore it must be objectionable. Making an active effort to legally distribute media content via P2P is much more a political statement for the legitimacy of P2P as a cultural phenomenon than it is a way to keep distribution cost low. Compare this to other attempts at making a (mini-) series popular on the Internet (Dr. Horrible, for example) that while being free-as-in-beer (initially) did not use P2P technology (or any free-as-in-speech distribution channel), and you'll see how radically different Pioneer One is in that respect. And that, regardless of the story or audience reception of the actual content. --elwood_j_blues (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I came to Wikipedia looking for more information on this series. If it were not here on Wikipedia, I would likely not have any other immediate sources or information on the series. And, seeing as how the series is a first as in being completely funded only by donations to then be only distributed on torrent networks, I think it's noteworthy. There's plenty of other shows and series that have wiki pages that very few people have heard of, let alone seen. So I don't think deletion due to notability is in keeping with fairness. Also, plenty of new TV shows get their Wikipedia pages before they've even aired an episode - how are they not considered promotional, yet some claim this is? Again, fairness. 64.138.208.92 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm all for this show, and it will probably be a big deal in a month or more, but it's not notable at this time. The only news results I can find (the likeliest sources of info on something new like this) are blogs, which are not valid sources. --[TINC]-- (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Through Google News, I found two news articles covering the show: [20] and [21]; both sources seem credible. The show is new but it is getting coverage. Hom sepanta (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As if every song or every movie on wikipedia is notable. The sponsored distribution system is a first, and hopefully an example. --Cobbaut (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep what is becoming a popular show (looking at the torrent file). Coverage has been appearing in a few places: NewTeeVee [22], Geekosystem [23], TorrentFreak [24][25]. Akirn (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keepDon't be dicks and delete this. I'm downloading this now after seeing it on the front page of Slashdot. It only just came out and I came here to see what it's about. This is far more notable than articles I see on Wikipedia about a school with 200 pupils (hint: this film has more seeders alone) or random character from random show X. Wikipedia shouldn't rely on mainstream media for popularity- this is popular among people and internet news sites/blogs already. Genjix (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't know if this has enough coverage, but I think we should give it some time in any case. --a3_nm (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are definitely enough reliable sources to be verifiable. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mentioned, this series has been noted on several prominent torrent sites, which demonstrates it is getting traction in it's novel approach to distribution. I'm also including a link to more coverage of Pioneer One.

Sci-Fi Thriller Series Pioneer One Debuts… For Torrents! --24.5.136.42 (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep: I would argue that the appearance of an article dedicated to this series on Slashdot is evidence of notability; that's what brought me to the Wikipedia article and this page. The article was created on 17 June 2010 and proposed for deletion on the same day, which is unnecessarily short. A search on Google for "Pioneer One" on 20 June produced 147000 hits (which I would argue is not "a few"). I also concur with the comments of other posters on this thread; the fact that it is or claims to be the first for-torrent TV production implies inherent notability. It may be lacking references but I imagine there are a large number of other Wikipedia articles which are in the same state; that alone is not an inherent reason for deletion.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pioneer One is already notable. No, it is not a blockbuster in terms of notability (Avatar anyone?) but the growing list of references on the article itself, the large number of result for "Pioneer One pilot" on Google (add to this that Pioneer One was released a short while ago - five days at the time of this writing) and the fact that is a first in regards of the distribution method (this argument was mentioned already before) warrants a strong keep vote from me. Also, making a good film with $7000 from donations is notable too. kkmic (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a new film, made by the same group of people who made lionshare, which merited an article of it's own on Wiki, and no one is complaining about that one. So either start making arguments about why the other film should not be notable, or accept that the second film by people who have already *earned* notability from this site is going to be at least as notable. 99.233.232.67 (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if it is notable per Wikipedia standards, where are the independent references from verifiable and reliable sources? The ones listed in the article are neither. As to The Lionshare, see WP:OTHERSTUFF - and that film does not appear to be notable either, so I've submitted it for a 2nd AfD. GregJackP (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources used in the article are reliable, from reputable news agencies such as NewTeeVee and Geekosystem, and organizations like TorrentFreak.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of which are blogs, and not from news agencies. See WP:SPS - they are not reliable. GregJackP (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a blog does not automatically disqualify a source as unreliable.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. Especially in the case of TorrentFreak, which, although published in blog format, is a news blog well-known for reporting on Bittorrent and Internet piracy topics. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it's a keep as even though it might not have had a lot to say, why shouldn't it be on wikipedia? Or why should any movie other than the groundbreaking ones be on wikipedia? It just seems stupid to delete it because it lacks sources the first day it's up on wikipedia... there's pages with far higher importance with near to or no sources at all. Thor erik ^{(talk|contrib)} 17:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't understand the "notability" argument. There are lots of TV shows in Wikipedia that haven't even been broadcasted and many others that have just made their debut. If "Pioneer One" isn't notable, then many other TV shows should be deleted too. This is a revolutionary show, only if because it was produced purely with donations. So what's the deal? A TV show is notable only if a TV channel produces and promotes it? I really can't comprehend the narrow-mindness in this approach. Dfisek ^{(talk|contrib)} 18:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As others have mentioned, this distribution of this project is inherently notable, and it's certainly of a greater cultural import than, say, St. Olaf Township. 99.199.104.75 (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Louist[reply]

Keep: I think that it is defiantly significant enough to be kept, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and in theory any television program produced and shown to a significant audience has merit to at least have 1 entry. Considering this is A. Sigificant for it's distrubitution model and B. It's production finance method and independent merits as a series. I believe the article should stay. Jamesnd (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From Wikipedia:Notability: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject". Visit the popular Pirate Bay. The advertisement placed in the center is quite notable there. :) Every day people like me come to this article hoping to get some unbiased information on the subject. That's what wiki is for. The reliable sources will follow even if there are none at the moment. DoomMaster (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)— DoomMaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Exactly what I was going to write. I came here to learn more about the show, deleting the article defies purpose of Wikipedia to me. Agent L (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The existing sources seem a little weak in establishing notability. However, as a heuristic, the quality of the first episode is really high (a notch below U.S. prime time shows) so there'll quite likely be more coverage coming. IOW, since this is bigger than most indy film projects, it'll probably be possible to establish enough notability if we give it a little time to wait for more news coverage. -- 87.143.159.98 (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough news coverage, if low key (ex. [26]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage and notability. Most likely this argument helped with that, but as it stands, it is notable enough.Tumble-Weed 02:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumble-Weed (talk • contribs)

Weak keep. It does have sources, though they aren't top-tier. However, it's likely to have better sources available in the near term; to echo Jamesnd above, it is just likely to end up being seen as Important, because of the independent production and distribution model. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's notable enough, and I'm confident the article will be much better in a few weeks as the news reports start. Besides notability for a TV show is quite relative. Villy (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources include creators website and publishers. Just because it has not been on TV, and second quoted on IMDB does not make this less credible than other TV Shows. Ridiculous suggestion. --78.105.115.195 (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The flood of new single purpose accounts rushing in to vote for keeping, along with some old accounts which had one edit long ago and may have been lying folded in a drawer somewhere arguing non-usefully that "Other Stuff Exists" or "Its Going To Get Coverage" or "It Has X Google Hits" are not at all convincing in their demands that it be kept. The fact of something being "The First" of its kind in no way satisfies any Wikipedia notability guideline. Wikipedia is not here to publicize some worthy new thing which has not yet been noted by reliable and independent sources. We are left with the need for significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. So far, the mainstream broadcast and print media have not covered it. There has been significant coverage in several online sources, as shown by Google News [27]. Several were discussed above. If a blog has editorial supervision and a reputation as a reliable source (perhaps demonstrated by its being cited as such by mainstream media) then a signed article therein contributes to notability by Wikipedia standards. This program appears to barely meet that standard in its coverage so far. An AFD is normally open for seven days, and today is apparently just a week since the debut. Edison (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NF states that a work like this can be considered notable if it "represents a unique accomplishment in cinema [or] is a milestone in the development of film art". Being "the first of its kind" would make this notable.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it had debuted long enough ago that reliable sources had had time to call it a "milestone" in cinema than that argument would be more convincing. Otherwise anything "new" could claim it, based on the opinion of a Wikipedia editor or some breathless blogfan. Edison (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Totally keep. The reasons? All the "keep reasons" above this one... Why would someone be interested on deleting a page for a first-of-its-kind project? And by the way, a great project, if you watch it you will be amazed... Daniel32708 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "I like the movie" in no way is an argument against deletion. Edison (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is not the argument. The argument is a first-of-its-kind project + all the above arguments.Daniel32708 (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ It now is covered by a German newspaper called TAZ, should be notable now link --Tavin (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strike vote. Tavin already voted above. --Bensin (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe Taz link is to Die Tageszeitung, an alternative nationally distributed German paper, around since 1978, and which looks like significant coverage in a reliable source for purposes of the notability of this article's subject. Edison (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - APC (Australia), ITavisen (Norway), 20 minutes (France), Bright (Netherlands) and golem.de (Gemany) writes about it. Not that it matters, but it's a pretty popular article.[28]. --Bensin (talk) 00:17, 25 June 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) 00:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Capital Group[edit]

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

Non-notable private equity firm, with name similar to notable firm and no evidence of capital under management. The article does not cite any references to establish notability |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Absolutely no showing of historical, technical, or cultural importance. All Google news hits are routine reports, notices of transactions, or press releases. I'd say this makes no minimal showing of significance or importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: found nothing for WP:N. Dewritech (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:15, 17 June 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. –MuZemike 00:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keisuke Fujiwara[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMANOT Paralympiakos (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:MMANOT. He hasn't fought in notable events or against notable opponents. Astudent0 (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's fought in DREAM which is notable--KEWLONION (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One fight does not make you notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:14 ta19 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, but I want to know if I can bring up the issue about DEEP and ZST being notable somewhere, can someone help me where to debate that --KEWLONION (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The place to bring this up is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. The goal there is to find consensus about what constitutes a "notable" MMA organization (besides UFC). Papaursa (talk) 01:01, 22 June 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) 00:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anacacia Capital[edit]

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

Non-notable private equity firm with limited third party coverage. Article created by individuals related to the firm. Aticle has been tagged and prodded previously. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even large firms need to show significant impact in independent sources to meet ORG guidelines. I find little evidence of impact using Google News. Fæ (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No showing of historical, technical, or cultural importance. Firms like this essentially consist of groups of people and portfolios of assets. They can spring up like morning mushrooms and vanish like the dew in sunlight. They seldom leave public monuments, landmark buildings, or put their names on household products; and hopefully, they steer clear of headline making scandals. They just aren't encyclopedia material. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:25, 18 June 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Sitaras[edit]

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

A single mention in a single magazine does not equal notability.

Was original PRODded; tag removed by an anon. IP. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 13:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One mention? Agree this does not confer notability. Wikipedia is not a small business directory. Jusdafax 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. No reliable sourcing found at Google or Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reliable sources located in The Financial Times, Robb Report, Men's Vogue, GQ, New York Post, and ESPN —Preceding unsigned comment added by SitarasFitness (talk • contribs) 00:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the notability guidelines, only gets brief mentions in a few media articles. Lustralaustral (talk) 22:33, 24 June 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. –MuZemike 00:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan hooligans[edit]

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

None of the sources meet the definition of Reliable Sources. The only real indicator of possible notability I see is the ranking at Podcast Alley. except PA is a site that does not have it's own page on the project. So a ranking on a non-notable site does not show notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No established notability. Claims of high ranking at iTunes (complete with links) cannot be verified as the provided links to not land on a page that even mentions this podcast. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Podcast Alley, while it might be a GOODCHART someday, is at the moment run by just one guy. No other listed sources come close to RS, sorry. No objection to mentioning the podcast in some other appropriate article per WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Currently ranked 3rd under iTunes Religion & Spirituality/subCategory Other. Can obviously be verified with anyone who owns the iTunes software. (Viewed 10:30pm EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlecodemonkey (talk • contribs)

~~*Do Not Delete~~ Because of the new technology of podcasts it is difficult to get a reliable source of popularity on any podcast. Podcasts such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brewing_Network have been in wikipedia for years without deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EconTalk has been on since 2007 without any criteria of popularity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thistlepod has been on since 2007 without any real information about it's popularity. There are countless more. A high Podcast Alley ranking is at least something. It is also used as a reference in "This Week in Tech" podcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlecodemonkey (talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You only need to voice your "Do Not Delete" opinion once. The presence of The Brewing Network may be a problem, but just because other bad articles exist is not a reason to keep this one. EconTalk is notable not for its popularity but for the notability of its host and its guests. Popularity isn't really the criteria here, notability is. Popularity is just one measure of notability -- a podcast that is highly popular will likely be the subject of independent third party coverage. A podcast such as "Pagan hooligans" has not generated sufficient independent coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:48, 19 June 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. Not able to find adequate independent sources. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emile (producer)[edit]

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

Non notable record producer. Padillah (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was PRODed on 7 June 2010 but the tag was removed by an anon IP. This is the second time in two weeks an editor has thought this subject was non-notable, I think this discussion needs to be documented. Padillah (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find coverage in reliable sources via Google searches that satisfy WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:CREATIVE. If others can find such sources, I'd be happy to reconsider. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per: Pdcook. Needs some WP:RS to make this a keep. Jusdafax 15:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the second editor to PROD it. This producer is not noteable enough for an article. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. STAT -Verse 17:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T Delete Everyone in the music industry knows that Emile is notable off of Kid Cudi's debut album. SMH...seems like a lot of people editing stuff that don't know relevancy in the music industry. 15:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.255.56 (talk)
If you can provide sources that state his importance that will work fine. Wikipedia has to have sources for any claim it posts. If you can get those sources then by all means save the article. As for the dig at what people know or don't know, that's not for you to say. You have no idea who I am, how can you possibly know what I know? I never said he wasn't influential. I never said he wasn't relevant. I said he's not notable and notability is it's own status. Statements like those are considered Personal attacks and are not tolerated very well here. Padillah (talk) 19:34, 18 June 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) 00:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomatocart[edit]

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

Fails Notability of Web content

This is a previous CSD A7 deleted twice previously with no noted improvement between recreations. As per this DIFF, it was recreated for a third time with the Refimprove tag already in place; ergo no article improvement. It was nominated for a third CSD A7 Web content Speedy Deletion but was declined because this ecommerce product (as per its article description - the software primarily interfaces with servers; thus making it web content related) "did not meet A7 criteria". Another editor WP:PRODed it but the article is brought to the full community for WP:CONSENSUS. There is no guarantee the PROD tag will be allowed to continue in place for seven days which makes an Article for Debate the more appropriate forum for discussion and consensus. --moreno oso (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no references or coverage. Lends to ADVERT. — Timneu22 · talk 13:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still no notability has been proven. Joe Chill (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, software is not web content. Joe Chill (talk) 18:43, 17 June 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) 00:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oritsejolomisan Eyeguokan[edit]

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

fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO. firstly no coverage in gnews [29]. and even if the claims in article are true, the minimum competition would be IAAF World Championships in Athletics. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hope that this is a hoax (no surprise if it is, because it's an unsourced lone contribution by an SPA). Otherwise, it's a rather mean-spirited biography of a real person ("he had a terrible year because he wanted to play"; "he choked because of the audience"; etc.). Mandsford 13:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Poorly written, no refs. Should have been speedied when first created. Jusdafax 15:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it was a declined speedy. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy should not have been declined, there is no claim of notability -Drdisque (talk) 14:06, 22 June 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Selling Association Malaysia[edit]

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

Not notable. Cosmonaut Kramer (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cant find anything that goes to notability - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Codf1977 (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Me neither, Gnew almost nothing, the press-links at dsam-homepage don't work, so nothing for WP:N. Dewritech (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Including the all-important "of" in searches finds a lot more potential sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a raft of coverage in major Malaysian news sources. On the pages mentioned by Phil Bridger, we have [30], and enough free news articles to support an article even if we exclude (which we shouldn't) the swathe of articles from one of Malaysia's biggest newspapers hidden behind a paywall.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even after including "of" in searches, no notability. --Tagtool (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not notable. Lustralaustral (talk) 22:31, 24 June 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. Notwithstanding the single-purpose activity, the rough consensus is that the article is based on speculation. –MuZemike 00:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been informed that there may possibly be some sources out there, so I have moved to the article incubator so it can be worked on. See Wikipedia:Article Incubator/POLQA. –MuZemike 00:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POLQA[edit]

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

Not notable yet. A "work group item", not yet an ITU-T recommendation. None of the references contains the acronym. Google brings up two blog entries, the rest seems to be unrelated, or wp mirrors. Pgallert (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. --Cosmonaut Kramer (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that WP:CRYSTAL is a factor, also lack of WP:RS. Jusdafax 15:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Disagree. Has been selected to go forward for ITU acceptance/recommendatioon in June 2010. I can find more than 20,000 links referring to it via Google, many of them on ITU websites - which are quite reliable/credible sources you would think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdive2007 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Disagree. As an expert with 20 years experience in this field I can assure you this info on the new draft (upcoming) ITU Standard is important and notable according to the encyclopedic nature of Wiki. Deleting a new ITU recommendation just gives room to abuse Wiki as currently encountered by some blatant advertisement, see e.g. e.g. [Talk:PESQ|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PESQ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guangsi (talk • contribs) 08:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Disagree. This will be the future standard for voice quality testing. The decision has already be made on a study group level to make this a standard in September if things go as expected. There is a very large community desperately waiting for this standard and efforts to develop it were tremendous with contributors from all over the world. BTW: The official ITU work title is called P.OLQA (as stated in the article itself), but it's generally referred to as POLQA only. If you search for P.OLQA you will find many, many hits. Grizzly007 (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to the remarkably uniform do-not-delete votes: Searching Google for "ITU-T Recommendation P.863" gives exactly one hit, and that hit is our Swissqual article. That's why I removed the reference to it, it just doesn't yet exist. You are right that "P.OLQA" gives ITU-T results (I missed that, sorry, my bad), and I am sure you're discussing it internally. The important question is, is it being discussed anywhere outside ITU-T, and can you give a reliable source for that? I found this and this when searching for P.OLQA but both documents do not go beyond a passing mention of the subject. --Pgallert (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Firstly the comment above about remarkable uniformity is unfair and inaccurate. Those "do not delete" comments contain more reasoned content than the deletion comments, are much less uniform and appeared over a longer time frame that than the original deletion comments. So which set is in actual fact "remarkably uniform"? It seems that experts in the field are responding to a lack of knowledge inherent in the proposal to delete this article. Dozens of parties were involved in the standardization discussions over several years in public, not "internally" as stated. There is minimal self-promotion in a well-balanced, non-biased article. It is a UN-sponsored initiative - the ITU-T being a UN body. And it cannot be a crystal ball matter if it actually happening right now - experts in the field all agree this has been selected for standardization. Finally despite what is said (inaccurately) about Google hits above, the fact is that there is no lack of credible public sources for this topic. The web has hundreds of discussion documents, cited academic papers, contributions, journal articles, independent press commentary and even technical books on this subject dating back to at least 2007, from sources that include the ITU, IEE and IETF: www.itu.int/md/T05-SG12-C-0026/en, www.cellular-news.com/story/34066.php, www.aes.org/journal/online/comment/?ID=15252, www.vde-verlag.de/proceedings-en/gs_proceeding/?docid=453120027, tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hunt-avt-monarch-00.txt and hundreds of others. The proposal to delete this article does not help Wikipedia become a better source of information.
  - Comment I have no intention to offend anyone. "Remarkably uniform" referred to the syntax of the votes, and a bit to the unusual situation that someone who hasn't edited im months, or not at all, suddenly turns up in this forum to rescue an article. I do not doubt P.OLQA is being discussed currently, by specialists and experts in the field. But it does not have the status of a rcommendation as of yet, and it has not yet been discussed by a wider audience. Your souces all mention that it exists, and that it is under development, but that is not the issue. An encyclopedia will take it in if it has been discussed (not just mentioned) outside ITU-T. One academic paper discussing the approach under the name P.OLQA and I will withdraw my nomination (the VDE paper I cannot access, it is behind a pay wall). --Pgallert (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The comments above seem to indicate there is some kind of frequency at which one has to contribute to gain the right to create or edit or even comment on Wikipedia articles. I do not believe this is correct or relevant, but for the record I have added around 20 articles to Wikipedia over years under various pseudonyms, and there are several contributions from the various authors above, on topics in which they have interest or expertise. The arbitrary hurdle to post an academic paper, when one clearly exists in a referred publication published by the VDE, is also an imprecise measure. What is relevant, in the imbalanced value system adopted by regular Wikipedia editors that "favors consensus over credentials" [31], is that this subject is being discussed widely in circles where it has meaning, and Wikipedia, as a public source of knowledge, should be able to present basic information on such a topic. In fact I believe this measure is also irrelevant to a true encyclopedia, which includes authoritative content on extremely esoteric subjects; but to this end it is easy to find - in just the top few pages of Google search results - openly available slides from classes being taught at universities including the Technical University of Berlin e.g. the BSc course included a module that discusses P.OLQA, at least 2 Phd theses that discusses the entire subject of speech quality testing including this area, slides from the Institute for Telecoms Science in Boulder CO, and many more e.g. the University of Zilina in Slovenia, Lulea University of Technology. Several discuss the issues with existing technologies and hence the need for this new technology, and there are a wide range of contributions from about 25-30 commercial entities to the discussion. To suggest that this subject is not being discussed is erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdive2007 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those of us who frequent AfD get used to the appearance of red-linked posters. Whether these are Socks (WP:SOCK or genuine fans drafted in for the occasion is sometimes moot. What does matter is this is not a vote by numbers, but a discussion of the article's compliance with Wikipedia's working procedures. I feel this one fails WP:CRYSTAL. There's many a slip possible when committees are involved - and when financial restraints are commonplace. Peridon (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I certainly know what a sock puppet is, having been a participant to Usenet since about 1980, but why should it be wrong to ask for support if a subject is being deleted in a haphazard fashion? I am amazed by the wide variety of ignorance displayed in this matter in the teeth of support by several experts in the field. Expertise in the subject matter is far more important than an opinion in an encyclopedic context. This is not a matter of having an opinion based on "crystal ball" foresight, this is matter of those judging lacking expert understanding of the context and subject, and ignoring those who do. Vote indented, Deepdive2007 already !voted above. --Pgallert (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My offer stands. Please observe our policies, particularly WP:N, WP:MEAT, and now also WP:CIVIL. I fail to understand how you would judge me/us to be any less expert than you, and I do not particularly like to be called ignorant. --Pgallert (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this discussion slowly drifts away from its original topic and we should restrict ourselves to the purpose of this page. The above mentioning of WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:CIVIL is purely speculative, not helping Wikipedia and even offensive. Let's stop that. The only thing we discuss is WP:N and as far as this is concerned, the "red-linked" contributor made some very valuable comment (and I don't mind if somebody is concerned of his/her privacy on the internet, as long as the content of the comment is valuable). Also, where would we end up if we did see google as our only source to verify notability? Keeping in mind the many sources mentioned and coming from that specific industry, I can only confirm my above statement that this article is really notable. Grizzly007 (talk) 09:41, 22 June 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) 00:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welding inspection[edit]

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

WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:NOTMANUAL all apply here. Nothing of encyclopedic value. — Timneu22 · talk 10:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be pasted from a manual of regulations. Empty Buffer (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but couldn't find said manual. If you can, feel free to nom under G12. — Timneu22 · talk 10:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have searched for a number of samples of the source and can't find any, but it's a clear WP:NOT#HOWTO etc violation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and the how-to rule. There's a reason that we don't have "how to" guides, not the least of which is that we don't want to encourage people to do things like their own welding inspections ("looks OK to me"). For the same reason, we don't have step-by-step articles about how to defuse an IED or how to safely make meth. Perhaps it's a direct copy, or perhaps the author just happens to sound like a technical manual, but there's no reason to keep this. Mandsford 13:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that we don't have these things, so why don't we have a CSD about not having things we don't have? Sigh. — Timneu22 · talk 13:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad suggestion, but even if we did have what we don't have but maybe should have, WP:SPEEDY requires an administrator to conclude that it's a page "with no practical chance of surviving discussion", and that's a tough call to make. In this instance, I don't see how one could write anything informative about the subject without going into how-to. What's left after that except to state the obvious, i.e., that work is reviewed for quality and safety reasons? Mandsford 16:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, there's not even a reason about how-to articles. So if you created how to weld safely, this article wouldn't be deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 16:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essentially an unsourced howto essay. As the article author has had copyright violations in the past, I share the suspicions of others who suggest that this article is a copyvio. I also don't see how this is a notable topic; perhaps it would warrant a brief mention in the welding article, but not its own stand-alone article. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:21, 17 June 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) 00:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FDI-Based Innovation: A Priority for Arab Countries[edit]

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

Pure WP:ESSAY and WP:OR, but no WP:CSD applies. Unfortunate. This is not an encyclopedic topic. — Timneu22 · talk 10:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly WP:ESSAY/WP:OR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: vacuous bollocks: Another approach to build a knowledge base of economic value is to foster, facilitate and promote innovation. In the simplest terms, innovation may be defined as the process of building on, or making new uses or applications of, existing knowledge. In other words, innovation is generating new knowledge from existing knowledge – technological or non-technological knowledge. To drive innovation on a country level, a national innovation system (NIS) has to be built..... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure OR essay. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:33, 17 June 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) 00:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Ufology[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Was proposed for deletion, however both creator and an IP contested the deletion. (Whilst the prod tag was not removed, their intent to contest the deletion was clear)

Original reason for deletion: "Appears to be original research"
Contested with: "The phrase "evolutionary ufology" may be a new combination of words, but the subject matter it represents is well-documented and established. Please do not remove this reference from Wikipedia."
Contested with: "The subject should not be removed because it is based on referenced and cited research." Taelus (Talk) 10:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional: I first suspected this of being a copyvio, but upon checking I could only find such wording on Wikipedia, thus this seems to be an essay which requires clean-up, if it is decided that the topic should be kept on Wikipedia at all. --Taelus (Talk) 10:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As an original paper/essay, it's original research/synthesis and so fails WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. (And it might still be a copyvio - the original might not be on the web). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious WP:ESSAY including the text: Before I continue. Awful. Too bad there's no CSD for essays. — Timneu22 · talk 11:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be an unpublished paper and/or the text of a speech by someone associated with MUFON, the topic's notability is not established by any reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As stated above, essay. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:32, 21 June 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) 00:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Tardy[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, was nominated for PROD, but ineligible as it was effectively contested.

Was deleted in the past via PROD for reason: "Article fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines for Wikipedia." Recreation could be seen to contest the deletion, and to prevent future recreation this should go via AfD so it becomes eligible for CSD G4.

Thanks for your time. Taelus (Talk) 09:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is truly a tough call. As an Mr. Football Award (Indiana) recipient, there seems to be notability here. However, that's a high school award. It seems after that there is very little that qualifies him as WP:ATHLETE. If recognition as Mr. Football is good enough, then I'd change to keep, but it seems this guy has done nothing else worthy. — Timneu22 · talk 11:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORT says High school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is national and independent of the subject. — Timneu22 · talk 11:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning stronger toward delete because there's just not a single reference in the article. His Purdue WR days seem to be completely unnoted. — Timneu22 · talk 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that's an easy call--no sources given, no article. The rest doesn't even matter!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that this is an easy call. High school awards are not enough. Jusdafax 15:09, 17 June 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) 00:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Wooden Pony Torture[edit]

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

With a lack of sources and no matches on Google Books, it seems unlikely that this phrase will be supported by quality sources in the near future and so fails the notability guidelines. If the concept as explained does exist historically, then it may be suitable for a mention in a parent article, if reliable sources can be identified showing this is not just a sexual fantasy. Previous PROD removed so raising for full discussion. Fæ (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with lack of sources. — Timneu22 · talk 12:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. Although it's easy to visualize what the author is describing, there's nothing in Google books that describes a "wooden pony" torture. Even as an element of sexual fantasy, there's only one book reference. Mandsford 14:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the talk page mentions chinese language refs... 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Jusdafax 15:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly redirect to Wooden horse if you are concerned its a valid search term. all google links are to this article and mirrors.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:01, 18 June 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) 00:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mnematron[edit]

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

Pretty sure this is a Hoax. All searching leads back to WP. Throwing this out to AFD so that others can either verify it's existence or prove the hoax & delete Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks pretty hoax-like to me too, and if not then it's at least WP:ESSAY / WP:OR. All the hits I can find are to sites that mention Arthur C Clarke, or to Wikipedia mirrors. Also note that though the title is "Mnematron", the body of the article uses the name "mneumatron" exclusively (I did GSearch for both). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the Pentagon quickly backs it up with RS. OT, a google check returns academic papers from the 60s and 70s mentioning "Mnematron CAT computer", a real but now forgotten type of test rig. Also, adjust template ((Arthur C. Clarke)). - East of Borschov (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch r.e. the template. If this closes out delete I'll make sure it gets rm'd --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:35, 17 June 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) 00:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sun In My Pocket (Album)[edit]

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

This lengthy article by a WP:SPA has zero reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the band is notable, there are no notable tracks on this page. The sentence explaining the notability is covered by a blog source, which isn't reliable and thus not being worldwidely recognised. Minima c (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS, as I cannot find any significant coverage for this album. The closest I can come up with is a two-sentence blurb on the title track which was chosen as PopJustice's "Song of the Day". Gongshow ^Talk 03:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is surely fishy, with a lot of big claims being made with only blogs and other unreliable junk as sources. I tried to check the claims about big chart success in South Africa, and the charting company there (RISA) has a website in the Afrikaans language that is searchable by using the obvious box near the top of the main page. See http://www.rsg.co.za/musiek_top20.asp. However, today it appears that this website is not working. If this album and its chart performance can be verified at that site, that might help with notability, but the article would still need to be pared down significantly to remove all the fan hype. The same goes for the band article too. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:08, 23 June 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) 02:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deepwater oil spill prevention[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. —fetch ·comms 01:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Enigma^msg 01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic content. Article is clearly intended as an essay and would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article is an essay. Faults/mistakes have been covered in the main article. Netalarm^talk 06:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-written the article to avoid what might have been read as my personal opinion, or non-neutral point of view. I've also read the WP-OR and WP-V pages, and I'm not sure what you are objecting to here. I certainly don't consider myself an original researcher in this field, but I do have a good knowledge of general principles of engineering, like redundancy in design. The article is intended as a starting point, and an invitation for an engineer with more expertise in this field to add more detail and more references. I see my role as helping such an expert make the explanation more understandable to the public.

Netalarm: By "main article" I assume you mean Deepwater Horizon oil spill. My intent here is not to repeat what is said there on faults/mistakes, but there may be some overlap just to make the article self contained. I definitely want to avoid politics in this article, and keep it focused on technology and on what will be useful in future drilling.

We really need an article like this, because it is so difficult to find good technical information on this topic suitable for a non-expert audience. It should not require a degree in engineering. --Dave (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Offshore drilling and leave as a redirect. The verifiable content from this article would improve, what I would percieve to be, the main article. Movementarian (Talk) 09:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten. Movementarian (Talk) 14:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Offshore drilling is all about history and other non-technical issues. We need an article focused on technology. Combining the two will make it too long. I expect that this technology article will grow to where we might want to split it into subtopics, like surface technologies and underwater technologies. We might even want to add cleanup technologies and make a third article.

--Dave (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold. If this article is about oil spill prevention, the introduction should reference numerous oil spills and why prevention is important. If it is about technology, it needs to be renamed. I vote to give it up to a week to see how the article develops and then reassess at that time. USchick (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I think there is enough material about the technical aspects of blowout prevention and mitigation to justify a new article. Off the top of my head I think "Offshore drilling disaster prevention and response" would be a better title. Using "Deepwater" as a single word in the title may lead people to believe it's specifically about the Deepwater Horizon incident. It could probably benefit from some Montara material. And a rewrite, it still seems essay-ish to me. Thundermaker (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold is fine with me. If we don't see some interest within a week, I'll delete it myself.
The article should definitely be on technology, not a survey of oil spills. Rename is OK. How about "Offshore oil spill prevention". I don't want to make the scope too broad. "drilling disaster" might include a wide range of safety problems on the rig, having nothing to do with oil spill prevention. "response" might include cleanup technologies, which really should be another article.
I'm still not clear on what is "essay-ish", but perhaps some additional contributors will iron out these problems. I've posted an invitation in the talk page of Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
--Dave (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold -- give it a week to develop with Under construction flag, & reassess at that time. Rename at once -- Deepwater is too specific and potentially confusing: prefer Offshore oil spill prevention and response, or some such. Could definitely use article, to be summarized in very brief space devoted to Oil_spill#Prevention and generic (not oil-specific) articles on Spill_containment and Dispersant, to round up summary of various articles in Category: Oil spill remediation technologies too detailed for the above. Significant amount of organizational work and summary edit work involved, Dave, but those articles' references should be a pointer in the right direction to escaping from essay style. Good idea, I think, and good luck recruiting more qualified technical editors. Perhaps posting a help request at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Engineering would be a good next step. Paulscrawl (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC) From that Project page: why not drop User:Andyminicooper a line? Paulscrawl (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Make that: Move raw draft outline to User sandbox and Delete -- fundamental rethink and rewrite is in fact required, as is collaboration if this is to be encyclopedic. Raw outline still reads like one well-meaning man's all-embracing attempt at finding solutions to a monumental problem, an impression furthered by his deletion of all feedback on his Talk page. Let him work it out in his sandbox on his own until article ready for prime time. Paulscrawl (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh!! Sorry for the delete on my talk page. It is now restored. It looked like just a heads up, pointing me to the notice that was already on the article, so I deleted it, trying to make room for some actual discussion. Let's at least assume good faith here. Paul, I very much appreciate your suggestions above, and I hope you will re-consider, I had already contacted the individual you suggested, and I am now following up on lots of material at a link he gave me. Just haven't had time to update the article. I have also invited anyone in the Engineering Project to help out. Let's stick to the original plan. If there isn't substantial improvement in a week, I'll delete the article myself.--Dave (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Dave -- sorry to mind read. My bold advice then: bottom line: aim for WP:IDEALSTUB status ASAP, this weekend. All else can wait. Replace everything, for now. That's job #1, I would think. Stubs can hang for a long time, and this article will take more than a week. You might decide exactly where to have collaborative discussion -- here, your Talk page, or, I would think best, article Discussion page. Might copy a few select things from here to there under well-named sections to get the ball rolling. Use your sandbox for its intended purpose - jotting ideas, refs, outlines, brain farts, etc. not needed for public display or feedback: most everything in article & current article Discussion page can go there for now while you replace current content with suitable Stub article, in proper encyclopedic style, however brief. Glance at my messy personal workspace for inspiration -- through everything in there. Also, it might be more fruitful of offers from competent collaborators to add some appropriate "help!" Category to article. I took the liberty of adding Category:Engineering articles needing expert attention -- if this was not proper, perhaps another editor here could please revise or revert. I'm sure a more experienced editor can help with those choices. I've taken two articles from deletion to sandbox back to life using these strategies. Good luck and let me know if I can help -- or hinder -- your work any further. ;> Paulscrawl (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like your advice, Paul, every word of it. I've added the stub template, and deleted the sections that don't yet have verifiable references. The parts I've left are still not complete, but perhaps far enough along that they belong in the stub article. Delete whatever else you feel is appropriate. I've got it all in my sandbox. As for the collaborative discussions, I agree, the article Discussion page would be best. I would recommend that we supplement that with discussions on the user pages for topics that are far from complete, perhaps with a brief summary on the main Discussion page, and a link to the user pages. That will keep the main Discussion page to a manageable size. As for comments on stuff in my user space, if it is linked in the article or its Discussion page, I welcome comments in my user space. --Dave (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm done here, then; see article Discussion page from here on out. Looking better already. Paulscrawl (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete! Contains great info. misplaced comment from IP user

Hold -- After reading WP:DEL, I don't see that NPOV and WP:NOTESSAY violations are valid reasons to delete an article. It should be possible to rewrite the article rather than delete it. For the WP:V problems, WP:DEL says that there should be a thorough search for references before deciding that the article should be deleted. I don't see evidence here that a thorough search has been done. As far as WP:OR is concerned, if sufficient references are found for the article, then the problematic and still-unreferenced statements can be removed from the article. As far as the article title, I agree with Thundermaker that the title should include something like "response" or "mitigation", since the article content goes beyond prevention. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL#REASON includes, as a reason for deletion, "any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia", which links to WP:NOT (the list of what Wikipedia is not). Among the forms of unencyclopedic content listed there are "primary (original) research" and "personal essays" (see WP:NOTESSAY). The test is generally that if fixing the page to make it encyclopedic would take as much, or more, work than starting the page from scratch, it should be deleted as unencyclopedic content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info on how WP:NOTESSAY relates to WP:DEL. I still think that the article should be given a chance for cleanup and then be reassessed. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has undergone an entire transformation since the AFD was initiated and the problems enumerated above seemed to have been resolved.--Pink Bull 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In its current state, seems like keep. — Timneu22 · talk 12:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No longer appears to an essay. Edgepedia (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Movementarian (Talk) 14:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been renamed and improved. Thundermaker (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename "Offshore oil spill prevention and response" MichaelWestbrook (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- and renamed, per suggestions here and on Talk page, where future developments of the article are outlined. Thank you all for your invaluable input and support. Who will be kind enough to remove that AFD template? Paulscrawl (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I like Paul's new outline, putting the technology into a broader context. I still think the article should help answer the question "Can offshore drilling be made safe?", not by presenting one answer (that was never my intention), but by providing enough understanding of the relevant technologies and human factors that a reader can make up their own mind. --Dave (talk) 12:54, 18 June 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 redirected. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Bennett[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced - possible hoax? Chris (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore as redirect to Steve Bennett It was a useful redirect before this article was written over it. Boleyn3 (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that if everybody else agrees it's a hoax. Chris (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revert. Should be reverted to the original disambig page, and a new article created for "Steve Bennett (hacker)" (or similar) if sources can be found - the current version was only created today, and would be a WP:BLPPROD as a new article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLD - I've reverted it, as it was blatantly wrong to overwrite the original disambig page (and I've removed the self-redirect for the alleged hacker too, as it only linked back to the disambig page). The author must create a new article if they think the person is sufficiently notable, and then we can argue that one if necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was recreated as a separate article, and has already been speedy-deleted as A7 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:29, 17 June 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 deleted (CSD G11) by Fastily. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas Operations Services from Symantec[edit]

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

as per WP:NOTGUIDE. almost an WP:ADVERT LibStar (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as speedy A7, G11, maybe G12. — Timneu22 · talk 12:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, unambiguous spam: ...designed to help system administrators identify risks in their data centers and increase operational efficiency, enabling them to manage the complexity associated with data center architectures and scale.... offers the following benefits.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 17 June 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 Siobhan Mailey. To say the least, it is a plausible search term. –MuZemike 01:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Dynevor[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT. one role career. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur, should be speedy. Csrwizard (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't speedy sourced articles with an assertion of notability, unless they are in violation of WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Delete. Only one role. (Also note that the only reference given is a pay site, so it's ineligible). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability. — Timneu22 · talk 12:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only trivial coverage that I could find, only one significant role. No indication of awards or anything else that would make her meet any guideline for inclusion. decltype (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Waterloo Road (TV series) or to Siobhan Mailey as it is TOOSOON for this actress to have a seperate article. While glad to acknowledge her (so far) 17 episodes of Waterloo Road, what little coverage she has is for being part of their cast.[32] I added those to the article in anticipation of a merge and redirect so the information would be sourced.[33] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 18 June 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. In all respect, the author also requested deletion in good faith, so WP:CSD#G7 tangentially applies also. I would not recommending opposing future recreation. –MuZemike 00:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Long Distance Swimming Association[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete. I received this message asking for it to be undeleted: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- hi anthony. if the page really doesn't belong on wikipedia, that is ok with me, i have no affiliation with the ILDSA. the ILDSA is important to the open water swimming community and the marathon swimming community because it provides observers to ride along on the swimmer's escort boat to certify that swimmer has meet all the regulations during the crossing. The ILDSA is also important because it keeps records of the results. Swimming the irish channel is a monumental achievement in open water swimming. It has been swum by notable people, including Alison Streeter as mentioned in her Honoree page the website of International Swimming Hall of Fame. http://www.ishof.org/honorees/2006/Alison%20Streeter.htm The Irish Channel is currently known as the North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland) Candotoo (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Candotoo (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A tenuous association with notable athlete(s) does not confer notability. Csrwizard (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- to be clearer, i do not propose an association between notable athletes and the ILDSA. Instead I meant to propose that the ILSDA is important in the open water swimming community because it serves in an officiating capacity for one of the the most difficult channel swims in the world, the North Channel (formerly Irish Channel) swim crossings of the North Channel (Irish Channel). But is the North Channel really considered a major challenge in the open water community??? If not, then the ILDSA may not merit a wiki page. But in fact the North Channel is a major challenge, comparable to - if not more difficult than -- swimming the English Channel. To establish this, i pointed out that the International Swimming Hall of Fame has included North Channel Crossings in their biographical sketch of their Honoree Alison Streeter. Candotoo (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Candotoo (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Object While i object to the deletion of the Irish Long Distance Swimming Association ILDSA, would a page title something like Open Water Swimmming in Ireland be more suitable? Candotoo (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Candotoo (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. The title is not the issue, the lack of sources showing how WP:GNG is met is. Nuttah (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The absence of sources makes establishing notability unlikely. Nuttah (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG Codf1977 (talk) 15:07, 24 June 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. –MuZemike 00:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Barcelona squad numbers[edit]

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

Used twinkle, however something seems to have gone awry. Article topic not notable, just a collection of stats, and I'm not sure what's gained by having it. Sandman888 (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:LISTCRUFT, nothing to be gained by this. Giant Snowman 07:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#STATS. In my opinion, this article contains no information of encyclopedic value. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With respect, nom resembles WP:JDLI. Eliteimp (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With "respect", keep resembles "I just like it" Sandman888 (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTCRUFT. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the dark side of the moon and quickly nothing encyclopaedic about this at all, pure list cruft. Big Dom 06:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. --MicroX (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what about Arsenal F.C. squad numbers? I mean, if we are going to delete Barça's, we should delete both. — Luxic (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenal F.C. squad numbers Sandman888 (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a clear cut case of WP:LISTCRUFT to me. I fails to see how this list has any encyclopedic value. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem quite keen to delete this list. Did you perhaps mean the Arsenal article? Sandman888 (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a step too far into non-encyclopaedic stats assembly. Any interesting features can be summarised in the main article. TerriersFan (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-encyclopaedic. – Pee Jay 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Sir Sputnik - Does not add to the encyclopedic value, most (if not all) is on other pages. Codf1977 (talk) 15:05, 24 June 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. The nominator's challenge was twofold: first, that the film fails WP:NFF, and the rough consensus is that this limb of the challenge has been refuted by evidence that the filming has started and is notable by virtue of the fame of certain cast members; and second, that the film fails WP:NF, and the rough consensus is that this limb of the challenge has been refuted by evidence of coverage in sources that the debate participants (by and large) found to be reliable. NAC by—S Marshall T/C 16:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Blood Out (film)[edit]

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

Unnotable future film. Fails WP:NFF and WP:NF, lacking significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Prod removed by SPA IP 70.112.195.183 (talk · contribs) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That someone may have not been logged in when making a few edits or is making edits as a new and inexperienced user does not does not automatically make them WP:SPAs.. simply editors without a long contribution history. So unless either is engaged in vandalism, why not give the benefit of the doubt, and extend courtesy and assistance? Toward my "keep"... principle filming had begun and (perhaps) been completed (4 weeks is enough if production is tight), ~~a trailer has been released,~~ and the project uses the talents of many notables which which is why it is receiving coverage in reliable sources... thus meeting the cautions of WP:NF and WP:CRYSTAL. Common sense would indicate that this project will get more coverage and not less as release approaches... and as cleanup, expansion, and sourcing have begun since nomination, it best serves the project and its readers to have this article remain and grow through the course of regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please prove it has finished production. Someone randomly changing the article to claim it so it supposedly meets WP:NFF does not make it so. Further, note that NFF also notes very clearly "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." - who is starring in the film does not make it notable, nor do random press releases. The production has not had significant coverage in any reliable sources, just confirmation of its being planned and filming starting. It doesn't even have a confirmed release date beyond the vague "2011" (unsourced). As such, no it does not best serve the project to have an article for the posting of rumors and IMDB-style status updates. And an editor whose only edits have ever been to this single article is an WP:SPA whether you agree with the term or not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect assertion, as guidelines are not mutually exclusionary. Involvement by notables that then give a film's production coverage in multiple reliable sources can indeed make a film's production notable per notability guidelines... which is why NFF is written as it is... as it is set to recognize that the GNG might be met even for an as-yet-unreleased film. And your bone-of-contention about whether or not the project is in post-production was easy to remove, pending sourcing... and there absolutely no point in going to battle over it with you.[34] And, as Wikipedia itself understands it is itself imperfect and a ongoing work in progress, demanding immediate perfection from newcomers sometimes kinda runs against guideline. There is also not always a mandate to ignore an article's possibility for ongoing improvement and then give the bum's rush to a new article by a new editor, unless due diligence shows the article itself to be hoax or vandalism or totally lacking in sourcability. If an IP removes a tag, that is also no reason to then send it to AFD two minutes later.[35] Such give good faith newcomers a bad impression toward the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -WP:NFF, filming started last month. this has a long way to go before release and notability Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 23:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline instructs that "articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." An film with Val Kilmer, AnnaLynne McCord, Tamer Hassan, Luke Goss, 50 Cent, Ed Quinn, Tamer Hassan, Ryan Donowho, Ambyr Childers, Michael Arata, and Vinnie Jones could be considered to be of sufficiently wide interest to merit inclusion as release nears. The project has been generating enough coverage, so that WP:GNG is being met... and it must not be forgotten that per WP:NFF, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines"... those "notability guidelines" include WP:GNG, and as we have a film by a notable director and with a notable cast, coverage of the production to meet the GNG is easily found by those who look. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No sense deleting now just to recreate it later on. Most of the news I find through a search is about two of the actors beating one another up at a hotel. Big name actors will surely have press about everything they do somewhere. Dream Focus 23:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, there is sense in deleting it now just to recreate it later on. It's called WP:NFF. There's no guarantee that this film will ever be finished or released. There's no sense in creating the article before the film even exists. Fails WP:NFF and WP:NF. SnottyWong ^verbalize 22:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SW... welcome ~~to another article tagged for rescue. Per the userbox you display on your user page, I expected you much sooner and had missed your presence. Glad you did not disappoint,~~ as I always find your comments worth reading. And no... my statement is not intended to be sarcastic, as you do indeed help in my own better understanding of guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snotty, are you here because you've studied the article, or simply because this article was listed at ARS and per your userbox, you've promised to vote to delete most of those (20/21 wasn't it?) Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Andy Dingley and (to a much lesser extent) MichealQSchmidt are presumably (and inappropriately) attempting to discredit my !vote by pointing out that I regularly patrol articles that are tagged for rescue, and often vote to delete some of them (in good faith), as evidenced by one of my userboxes. The acceptability of my actions and of my userbox have been debated ad nauseum at the MfD for the userbox, and should not affect the way my comments are taken into consideration during closing. Thanks. SnottyWong ^gossip 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your userbox is your userbox, and as you ponted out, other editor's concerns about the userbox were disscussed at a the MFD, and per that MFD, your public announcement of your intentions is perfectly acceptable... just as I have the ARS userbox on my userpage... as well as ones for WikiProject Films, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Biography, Unreferenced articles WikiProject, and the Article Incubator. I can only hope that editors look at my userboxes and judge the quality of my edits accordingly. Anyone with specialized userboxes is open to the same scrutiny. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Then you won't mind if I point out your membership in ARS at every rescue-tagged AfD, and subtly imply that your membership might be influencing you to vote Keep. In fact, maybe I'll even make a new template to make it easier:

— MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs) is a member of the Article Rescue Squadron.

SnottyWong ^gossip 04:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That sure showed me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a better one:

— MichaelQSchmidt's !vote to keep this article may have been influenced by their membership in the Article Rescue Squadron.

I'll go make the template. SnottyWong ^babble 04:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And your templates are helpful to civil discussion how? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They illustrate how your initial comment about my userbox was equally unhelpful, irrelevant, and inappropriate. SnottyWong ^express 04:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ SW: Article topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice." Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines. A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed on the right...." The subsections of WP:N do not overrule the main notability guideline page... they support it and allow further considerations toward notability, and guideline are not set to be mutually exclusionary. Someone may fail GNG but pass ANYBIO. Someone might fail ANYBIO but pass GNG. So sorry... the topic does pass both WP:GNG and WP:NFF... through the notability of its production, as NFF is set in place to acknowledge that unreleased films might be found notable through production receiving coverage in reliable sources... as this one is.... and there is absolutely no hint of it being in "production hell".... quite the opposite. Further, it has distribution in place and a tentative release set for the end of the year. Lionsgate has locked distribution in the US, UK, and Canada... and Cinema Management Group of Los Angeles has locked sales in (so far) Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Latin America, Poland, Turkey, Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Scandinavia, and the Middle East... seems folks want to show this film. Now had this film been something merely "rumored", or something still in still in "pre-production", I might tend to agree... but that's not the case. Considering who is involved, coverage has been continuing... and it is a bit of a strech to think that coverage might somehow decrease as release draws near... and heck, even total failures that were never released can and have occasionally been found notable enough for Wikipedia... but hey... this ain't been claimed or shown a failure here by anyone. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If the production shuts down today, nothing that has occured is notable. In the film world it happens every day. Will it, likely no, but all that is WP:CRYSTAL. We are assuming that in the future this will be a notable project either by it's release, or by some notable closure to the project. Anyway the article looks like a keep so I guess it is a waisted debate. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There is no film yet. If the lead actor has a heart attack and dies, there may never be a movie. No one is debating that the film will likely be notable once it exists. But until it does exist, there is no reason for an article. WP:NFF is crystal clear on this policy. The only exception is if the production of the film itself is notable, of which I have seen no evidence. Why not put it in incubation until the film is finished? SnottyWong ^confer 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, with so many international sales already made, were Val Kilmer to die tonight (Lord forfend), the reality is that production would probably find some way to continue without him (as was done upon John Candys death during the shooting of Wagons East!) as fimmakers make films to make money, and investors and customers expect results... else production would be subject to such a bloodbath of lawsuits that we'd have continued coverage of production due to that happening. But naturally such empty speculation in expecting or predicting failure at this late stage in principle filming is the true WP:CRYSTAL. The reason to keep is based upon it specifically meeting guideline, as explained and shown repeatedly on this page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has the ARS started training its members in the art of the Straw man argument? My point was that this film doesn't exist yet, and by speculating on its hypothetical cancellation I am attempting to prove a point which obviously went over your head. I'll explain again: if the production of the film suddenly stopped and the film was never finished, then the film would not be notable and would not deserve an article unless the circumstances under which it was cancelled were themselves notable. So, if the non-existent film is not notable now, then the article should be deleted until it becomes notable, because there is no guarantee that the film will ever be finished. Note: I am not looking into my crystal ball and predicting that this film will be cancelled. I am only referencing its cancellation as a hypothetical exercise in an attempt to illustrate an idea. SnottyWong ^chat 04:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Has the ARS started training its members in the art of the Straw man argument?" What an incredible bad faith and incivil acccusation, set to denigrate as many editors as possible at once. Your hypothetical speculations are just that.. hypothetical speculations... while my own comments towazrd production's current and growing notability, and why, are directly supported by guideline and sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, guidelines are guidelines. Do you have any sources which confirm that principal photography has started? If not, then it fails WP:NFF, unless you have sources which establish the notability of the production itself, independent of the film. Simple as that. Please produce the sources. SnottyWong ^chat 14:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Val Kilmer shoots film in Baton Rouge" WAFB for one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Come on! Notable cast, crew, and reliably sourced. A notable project before, after, or if it's never released. And truly stupid, and a waste of a lot of people's time to nominate, much less delete. Dekkappai (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reason to keep an article. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. SnottyWong ^express 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, the argument his not WP:ITSNOTABLE... the argument is notability of production through its coverage. And THAT is per guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Covered in enough reliable, independent sources to make it notable regardless of what WP:NFF says. Reyk _YO! 21:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:IAR. Ultimately it is a notable production and Wikipedia is improved by covering it. -- œ ^™ 16:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR is not a reason to keep an article. In fact, IAR argues equally for both deletion and keeping. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. SnottyWong ^express 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, the argument is not WP:ITSNOTABLE... the argument is notability of production through its coverage, and improving the project through retention of an article. And THAT is per guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline that says automatic retention of articles improves Wikipedia. Also, for the original comment about IAR, see WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. SnottyWong ^chatter 14:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is asking for "automatic" retention. You might though want to actually read WP:IAR and then confirm for yourself by either reading the article or seraching for sources that the production is being covered in multiple reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable cast, past the dream stage and into production, distribution locked in, release date tentative, coverage in significant publications. - BalthCat (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reason to keep an article. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. SnottyWong ^express 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, the argument is not WP:ITSNOTABLE... the argument is notability of production through its coverage, and THAT is per guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what unique aspect of the production of this film is notable, and which sources establish its notability? SnottyWong ^speak 04:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production being written of in multiple reliable sources meets the instructions toward consideration of notability as set forth in WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coverage cited in article is sufficient to meet WP:N. If filming hadn't started yet, that would be one thing, but that's not this case.--Milowent (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF requires that the production of the filming itself be notable in order to have an article about a future film. Are there any sources which establish the notability of the production itself? SnottyWong ^converse 20:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production being written of in multiple reliable sources meets the instructions toward consideration of notability as set forth in WP:GNG. Both the article AND searches offer these sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production received notability through its meeting WP:GNG. This has, and so this is. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no evidence of your claim. Which sources establish the notability of the production of the film? SnottyWong ^confer 14:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production being written of in multiple reliable sources meets the instructions toward consideration of notability as set forth in WP:GNG. Both the article AND searches offer these sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep: looks well sourced... there is a difference between being a crystal ball vs talking about something in development... Arskwad (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reason to keep an article. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. SnottyWong ^express 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a slight case of Déjà vu now.--Milowent (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. SnottyWong ^yak 20:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt. WP:CRYSTAL is rightly a prohibition on making predictions about the future. This article covers a major commercial endeavour that is already under way. If it cancelled tomorrow there would need to be changes made, but the article would still be justified as, "What was Val Kilmer doing in 2010 and why wasn't it ever released?" (Terry Gilliams passim). We're past the point where WP:NFF is against it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's the whole point. If the production was cancelled tomorrow, this article would be immediately deleted, and maybe a one-line bullet point would get added to Val Kilmer's article. Unless, of course, the reason that the production was cancelled was itself notable. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 20:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have lots of articles on cancelled films though, e.g., Something's Got to Give. See also "Category:Cancelled films" not to mention "Category:Upcoming films".--Milowent (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have articles on cancelled films, so your response above is irrelevant. I'll bet we have articles on about 0.00001% of all films that have ever been cancelled. The only ones with articles are those whose cancellation itself was notable (i.e. if it was cancelled as a result of Marilyn Monroe's death, as in your example), or other circumstances surrounding the production were notable. SnottyWong ^spout 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well give Snotty time, he hasn't got round to AfD'ing it yet! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IF the film were cancelled tomorrow... the production would likely remain notable for a whole different set of reasons. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't, in my opinion, fail WP:NFF. Filming has started, and this has a source, and a notable cast. No reason to delete. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 22 June 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. –MuZemike 00:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Halfaker[edit]

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

Recommend deletion for the following reasons:

Subject is non-notable per WP:BIO. Bronze Star and Purple Heart decorations are insufficient for notability, her company is very small and non-notable, and her advocacy efforts seem relatively minor (no big breakthroughs or achievements listed, and I can't find evidence of any). She generally seems like an accomplished woman but doesn't need her own article.
The article draws heavily on an official biography from her company website, which raises questions of WP:NPOV and WP:RS.
The reliable sources cited generally do not provide information that would support an argument for notability. Csrwizard (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.
Delete: doesn't seem like notability was established per WP:MILPEOPLE. The awards are there (though none of the 3rd part sources mention them), but not really expanded upon (citation, media coverage, citations, etc.), nor does leading such a small unit necessarily confer notability, especially without significant participation in notable battles. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also have concerns from this [36] which seems to have large parts cut and pasted. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mid-ranking army officer and Bronze Star / Purple Heart recipients are not inherently notable Vartanza (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Although only a mid-ranking officer with only Purple Heart and Bronze Star awards, and although some may feel that her contributions are small, they are numerous. Ms. Halfaker is well renowned and highly regarded in Washington, DC and across the country. She has made numerous television appearances on HBO and other networks which are references and cited. She holds the position of Vice President of the Board at what is possible the most notable veterans service organization to date [37]. In addition, Ms. Halfaker is the face of wounded female combat veterans and wounded female business owners. This article has been online for quite some time, I'm note sure why it is just now a topic of discussion. Ms. Halfaker is notable, highly respected, and deserving of this page. --Adam Mattis (talk)--Amattis (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lots of people could be described that way but don't have Wikipedia pages. The subject falls well short of WP notability criteria in her military service, business, and advocacy. Removing her encyclopedia page is not a denigration of her accomplishments. If, as you say, she's notable, that assertion has to be reliably sourced, and appearing on an HBO special and a NY Times puff piece doesn't cut it. Further, just because the article has been up a long time doesn't mean it's too late to remove it. Csrwizard (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to fail WP:MILPEOPLE. Codf1977 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 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) 00:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Pearl Gupta[edit]

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

does not meet notability per WP:ONEEVENT, especially if as the article says, several such bus deaths occur daily Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tragic though it is, it's just one story of a fatal traffic accident in a city that has many such deaths - WP:ONEEVENT. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ^Nilotpal42 13:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unfortunate and tragic pedestrian accident, but it would not be notable no matter where it happened. If it had been a college student in New York City who had been run over by a bus that had been going too fast, it probably would have been mentioned in the local news section of the New York Times, but that would not be historically notable either. Mandsford 13:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. prashanthns (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. This death is tragic, but not notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:28, 20 June 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) 00:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repossession Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A sub-stub asserting (without sources) that the company exists. This would probably qualify as an A7 speedy, if it weren't for the previous AfD nomination, which closed as "no consensus" due to a lack of comments. If this is never going to be more than two sentences, there's no need to have it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't find third-party coverage. May need to look into Category:Repossession Records artists to see if all these are being created promotionally. — Timneu22 · talk 12:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete- No citations, extremely short stub. Delete per A7.^Nilotpal42 13:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 10:45, 19 June 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. The reasons for deletion seem to outweigh the reasons for retention here, which are weak at best. –MuZemike 00:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Raheem Green[edit]

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

nothing in the article points to specific notability Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. An article about a person that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. N/A 0 04:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Abdul Raheem Green is a notable and important person in the Muslim community. The article is useful and informative. Qwerta369 (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probable Keep. The refs link above shows quite a few hits. I've searched myself too, and I found quite a few (although a lot are blogs and forums). Found only two GNews hits myself ([38], and [39]), both of which only seem to mention him in passing, but some general GHits look fairly strong, including [40], [41], [42] (that one's a Mail article so don't know why it wasn't found in a GNews search). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, not notable. Currently, he is working with an Islamic media company based in England and engages himself in da’wah activities including lectures on Islam in London’s famous Hyde Park. Is that notable? Hardly. — Timneu22 · talk 12:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 ^Nilotpal42 13:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week keep~~. (Neutral) Character seems to be reasonably prominent member of Islamic community. Has received quite a bit of coverage, even if not necessarily from the most mainstream (or reliable) of sources. Certainly far from being a candidate for speedy deletion. Suspect this is a response to his 'conversion'. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely bad faith-keep your suspicions to yourself. A poor article is a poor article.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 14:56, 24 June 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 (author request) by Athaenara. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subversia[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Lacks GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:38, 17 June 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. The rough consensus indicates that the general notability guideline has been met, the main reasons given for retention. –MuZemike 00:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson Taillon[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE This article was WP:PRODed but its creator removed the PROD. Fails both criteria of WP:ATHLETE as:

The subject "has not 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, except for those that participated only in competitions that are themselves non-notable."
The subject "has not competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.

While the subject may have received reliable sourced press, that does not make him notable per the higher standards of WP:ATHLETE." --moreno oso (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The PROD was removed because it was not applicable. I concede that the subject appears to fail WP:ATHLETE, but that is NOT sufficient reason for deletion. WP:ATHLETE does not supersede WP:GNG. If you look earlier in WP:ATHELTE, you will see the following: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Given that, no justification at all has been presented for deletion. The subject passes WP:GNG due to the significant coverage he received from the likes of MLB, ESPN, and Baseball Prospectus. Mickeyg13 (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ATHLETE is a fallback in case a page does not obviously meet WP:GNG. In my opinion, a person with over 1,000,000 google hits and over 250 Google News hits has easily met the requirement of having significant coverage in third party sources. Rather surprised that this was even nominated. Kinston eagle (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As second overall pick, there's significant coverage. Agree with Kinston eagle that WP:ATHLETE is a fallback. Now, if this guy had been the 47th overall pick or something, it would be a different story. — Timneu22 · talk 12:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Manny Machado's article got deleted for the simple fact that he had not played professionally. The same rules should apply for Taillon.--Yankees10 15:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WAX, the deletion of Machado's article is not sufficient justification to delete this one. Also, not playing professionally is not enough justification. The issue to debate is NOT whether Taillon meets WP:ATHLETE (we agree he does not), but whether he satisfies WP:GNG. We contend that the significant, nontrivial, verifiable coverage he has received from independent, national sources (MLB, ESPN, Baseball Prospectus, Baseball America, etc.) satisfy this criterion. For what it's worth I disagree with the decision to delete Machado's article for these same reasons, but that is not relevant here. Mickeyg13 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. The standards of WP:ATHLETE do not supersede GNG. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ATHLETE is not a hard and fast rule to be slavishly adhered to, this is a good example of why. Eliteimp (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG despite failing WP:ATH. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He hasn't even signed yet. Rigth now he's just a high school pitcher who got drafted. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument. Yes we all know that he is not yet a professional athlete. Nonetheless he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so by WP:GNG he qualifies for an article. Specifically:

"Significant Coverage": He received pre-draft coverage in the following links referenced on his page: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], and [48]. Post-draft he received the following coverage: [49], [50], [51], and [52].
"Reliable sources": ESPN, MLB, Baseball America, and Baseball Prospectus are among the most reliable sources available for baseball content. If they don't count as reliable sources for baseball then I have no idea what does and would love to be educated about it. I think the other links also count (Fangraphs is very well-respected in sabermetric circles for instance), but I'm more certain about ESPN, MLB, BA, and BP.
Independent of the subject": The aforementioned sources have no affiliation with Taillon aside from covering baseball. I'd disagree but be willing to listen to an argument discounting the sources from local newspapers or the the team that drafted him, but ESPN, MLB, Baseball America, and Baseball Prospectus are certainly independent.

So which of the above points do you disagree with? Or do you agree that he satisfies all the criteria for WP:GNG? If he does satisfy WP:GNG, why does he not warrant a page? Mickeyg13 (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 20 June 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) 00:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Virginia Whitley[edit]

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

No real assertion of notability, the only significant source is self-pubslished (BookSurge), written by a descendant of the subject. Will Beback talk 02:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being present when her husband did something important doesn't really seem to be sufficient notability - and she's already mentioned as being his wife in the H.J. Whitley article. The self-published book mentioned above is about him, not her. There are GHits, but nothing that looks relevant - a couple of Wikipedia mirrors and then nothing much at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. — Timneu22 · talk 12:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the Who's Who listing given as a reference mentions her only in passing, as the wife of H. J. Whitley. She does not appear to be notable on her own. Incidentally, the linked article says that the book written by her great-granddaughter is the source of the nickname "Gigi"; my hunch is that Margaret was only called that by the author of the memoir, since "GiGi" or "G-G" is a common nickname for "great grandmother".
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BASIC as either significant or reliable sources cannot be found to establish the subject's notability. As a WP California member looking over our deletion sorts, I tried to find sources to support this article and could not. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:30, 19 June 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. –MuZemike 00:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Kripalvanandji[edit]

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

Delete. Non notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I lean slightly in favor of deletion. I created the article (in a different, earlier form) because somebody had inserted bio into the article Kripalu, where it was an irrelevant digression.

Can't find high-quality sources on this person, and there were some very questionable edits, possibly made by fanatical devotees. I've abandoned ship.

On the other hand, am philosophically an "inclusionist," and don't see harm in having available a lousy article about an obscure person.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an expert here, but complete lack of sources to back up any claims. All the refs are from http://www.lakulishyoga.com/ and its subpages. — Timneu22 · talk 12:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [53], [54], [55], [56], and [57]. Joe Chill (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete brief mentions in a couple of books doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Lustralaustral (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of the books is a brief mention. He goes by three different names: the name of the article, Bapuji, and Swami Kripalu. Also, it's four books and the fifth reference is a page that is devoted to Swami Kripalvanandji. Joe Chill (talk) 22:51, 24 June 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. There seems to be a rough consensus that are article is utlizing synthesis to push a POV and/or engage in original research. –MuZemike 23:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority (2nd nomination)

Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of charismatic leaders

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

(({text))} Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC) (categories) The subject is way to broad this list can include every politician, Religious leader and three quarter of our BLP and Long Dead person BIOS. I understand why some one may find this useful idea for a category as is it is way to broad and Reeks of OR and POV. IF we limit it too people that only Sociologists (As Weber is the Socio Realm) note as fitting "charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority" such this page might have hope. but now From the looks we have everyone and his brother listing people they find Charismatic with no relation to Sociological theory of Weber[reply]

Weak Delete As it stands now, this is pure original synthesis, although nothing that can't be cured by a rename that refers to charismatic authority. Lose the personal judgment about whether someone thinks somebody meets Max Weber's criteria, give it a sensible title, and one would have a well-sourced article about leaders described in other sources as charismatic. Mandsford 14:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To quote from the previous AFD: "The list has a very clear criterion for list member inclusion ("as defined by Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority), and each list member has a reliable source as a reference." It isn't vague at all. If there are any entries that don't meet the criteria they should be removed. That would seem to address the nominator's concern. Will Beback talk 21:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I am concerned because the list should include every religious leader since the writing of the Vedas could be put here. this makes a list though clearly defined criteria is no excuse to have such a unwieldy list. And how we define whose on the List?

People who are said by sociologists as Fitting "the Weberian Model of Charisma?"
People Who are said by sociologists to be charismatic?
Anyone who we can find who has been Referred to as Charismatic by a RS?

These are the issues with this list Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that the classification is attributed to one person just adds more WP:POVRussianReversal (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Max Weber essentially created the definition of a "charismatic leader", and the term is now used by scores of scholars. The name appears in the title to make it very clear that the criteria is precise. I'm not sure what POV is supposed to be expressed. Will Beback talk 04:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Will Beback says, this is the key original mrsning of the phrase, and excellent sources are present for its applicability to these items. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Synthesis. If Weber had made a list of charismatic leaders then it should be placed in the article about charismatic leaders. TFD (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce list to Weber's own picks, then decide if it's worth keeping. Here's the case when thousands of PhD papers, taken as a whole, can not be collated into a uniform representation of academic opinion. Each author has their own margin of tolerance (not to mention political agendas), and taken together they have just as much sense as the "list of hottest dishes" or "list of cool chicks". Inappropriate synthesis. East of Borschov (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, POV. Non-encyclopedic. Possibly agree with "reduce to Weber's own picks", but is that worth keeping? — Timneu22 · talk 11:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per timneu22. i doubt the list would be encyclopedic if trimmed, but im not going to find out myself.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:04, 18 June 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. –MuZemike 23:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spectral Hash[edit]

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

Non-notable cryptographic hash function with limited actual usage. KTC (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is based on mention by sources (which this has, from NIST), not on the amount of use an algorithm sees. Nor is WP the right body to judge its quality. We should quite rightly have an article on bubble sort too. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the two references linking to NIST are primary sources, and do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. We're not here to judge the algorithm, but rather it's notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then are you going to delete NIST hash function competition too? I cannot see any way to separate the notability of the competition, and that of its lesser-known entrants (some, presumably the winner, might well go on to further notable things). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the notability of the conference isn't relevant here, per WP:OSE. What the lesser-know entrants may do in the future is also irrelevant, per WP:CRYSTAL. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've failed to comprehend my point. You wish to reject the two NIST refs for Spectral Hash. Are there still refs for NIST hash function competition that wouldn't have to be rejected by the same criteria? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I don't know, I glanced at the NIST hash function competition article, but haven't evaluated the sources, since that's not relevant to the discussion here. It may well be that the NIST hash function competition is notable, perhaps it is not--but in either case, the notability of a competition does not confer notability to all of it's participants. The Boston Marathon is notable, but most of the runners aren't. Also, I do not "wish to reject the two NIST refs", I'm just pointing out that since those references are the presentation of the algorithm, they do not establish notability per WP:GNG. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm failing to understand your point. I'm happy to agree that NIST hash function competition is notable, but the majority of the refs in that article (I don't have time to dig) are no more (and perhaps less) secondary sources for that article than the two NIST-published refs for Spectral Hash. Now IMHO, these are all adequate refs for independence, quality of authorship and avoiding the issues of primary sources - so both articles stand. Whilst the first NIST-published ref for Spectral Hash is authored by the algorithm's authors, the second is little more than a conference schedule and list of entrants, authored and published by NIST. That isn't a great ref for detail, but it is IMHO a strong ref that a contest happened, and that Spectral Hash took part in it. That is as much, IMHO, as we need to demonstrate to show notability of it, sufficient to pass AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm not saying that the NIST hash function competition is notable, so I'm not sure what you mean by agree. If the references for that are no better than the ones in this article, notability is probably in question for that article as well. But that's not relevant to the discussion here. The fact that Spectral Hash was part of a competition does not establish it's notability. Do you really believe that the references constitute significant coverage? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see at least one independent RS that attests to its existence (and its entry in the competition). I consider that enough. Now strict policy calls for "multiple", so in the absence of time to look for further ones (and this encyclopedia would be better if editors spent more time in the Google: namespace and less arguing in the WP: namespace), I have no real answer to that. However I'd regard that as a churlish reason to seek deletion of an extant article on a useful topic (hubris in algorithm design) and I'm sure that other refs are out there, should anyone have time and effort to look for them (I expect there's more discussion of the flaw and its demise than of its initial release). Whilst a mass run like the Boston marathon might not convey notability on its competitors, some more selective contests do. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I still don't see significant coverage in any of the references. We disagree, it happens. As a side note I point out that "more" doesn't list all participants, and many listed including winners are redlinked, "selective" lists winners (many of whom are redlinked), and contests lists all participants but there are a lot of redlinks there, too. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but again, WP:OSE. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with bubble sort is that it is notable from where it is taught / mentioned by lots of courses, books, tutorial etc. The only notes with this algorithm is its entry into an open competition. Just because the competition is notable doesn't mean one of its entry (which didn't get very far at that) is. The notability requirement requires multiple independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. The sources for Spectral Hash does not fulfil this requirement: 1) Not independent as it's the presentation of the algorithm by its designers; 2) Not significant coverage as it's merely the timetable listing of the 1st conference; 3) A paper co-authored by one of the co-designer talking about hardware implementation so not really independent; 4) Less about the algorithm and more about an attack on it. KTC (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems this article is being used as a resume-builder for Gokay Saldamlı, Cevahir Demirkıran, Megan Maguire, Carl Minden, Jacob Topper, Alex Troesch, Cody Walker, Çetin Kaya Koç. It's a "new family of hash functions" (their website) with really no third-party significance. — Timneu22 · talk 11:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Resume building" would seem a little odd when this has function was so quickly rejected as insecure! Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has notability due to being selected by NIST for the first round of the competition, and independent sources in the form of discussions of the competition, despite the fact that it's not a very good hash function. Compare FEAL, a completely insecure block cipher that is also unquestionably notable. Yes, it could use more direct sourcing in the article itself, but those sources exist. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question What "independent sources in the form of discussions of the competition"? If you have sources, please bring them to the discussion. Sources are always welcome! --Nuujinn (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean discussions like [58] and [59] (warning, PDFs). I'm sure there are others. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PDFs are fine. 2 is not linked. 1 is a good source, but not significant coverage, just a passing mention. But please, add any additional references you can: if notability can be established, that's a good thing. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link 2; I dunno how I mangled it in the first place, so thanks for letting me know. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but I still must be missing something, there's a footnote to an article with spectral hash in the title, do you consider that significant coverage? I do not think there has been reference to this algorithm put forth here that goes into any depth whatsoever about the algorithm itself that is not the work of the authors of the algorithm, and as such, I cannot regard it as notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:57, 20 June 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) 02:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nanodams[edit]

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

Contested prod, removed by anon IP. Non-notable concept. Article seems to be a coatrack for promoting the idea. Either way, it fails WP:GNG. I've looked around for sources for this and can't really find any that apply. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Non notable. This seems to be an advertisement. No third party sources, can't even find any... Undead Warrior (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only one source which is promoting the idea. If independent sources can be found at a later date, article can be restarted with them. Seaphoto^Talk 05:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with Undead Warrior. Csrwizard (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've searched and all I can find is the organization's own site, which is a primary source, and no relevant secondary sources. So, primary source only, and a bit promotional in style. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undead Warrior nailed it. Etrigan (talk) 16:41, 17 June 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) 02:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romus Burgin[edit]

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

Non notable author - fails WP:GNG and WP:author Codf1977 (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: While a Bronze Star Medal by itself would be not enough, being depicted in both With the Old Breed and The Pacific satisfies significant coverage. While the article is in better shape than the concurrently nominated Articles for deletion/Andrew Haldane, he does seem to be slightly less inherantly notable, thus the "weak". bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reluctant keep, per Bahamut. — Timneu22 · talk 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, anybody who lived through that hell and then was able to write about it is more important than all those articles about two-bit actors in here. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 23:15, 17 June 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) 02:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Notice Board[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Significant coverage? I'd like to see any at all. Non-notable. — Timneu22 · talk 11:52, 17 June 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.