< 2 April	4 April >

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. postdlf (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wharton Infosys Business Transformation Award[edit]

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

Non-notable technology award. No third party sources to establish notability. Fails WP:N. Sure, some of the recipients are notable, but that doesn't make the award notable. GrapedApe (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This technology award recognizes enterprises and individuals who have transformed their businesses and their societies by leveraging information technology. -50 notability points for "leverage" as a verb. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect ~~to Wharton School of Business~~ to Infosys#Initiatives as suggested by SudoGhost below. Non-notable award, Google News hits are minimal. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Infosys#Initiatives, as the information (minus the ~~charts~~ tables) is essentially already in the Infosys article. - SudoGhost (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2011 (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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Ashford[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence that this writer and broadcaster meets the notability guidelines yet Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed a lot of unsourced stuff, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The James and Joe Show. -84user (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage found to substantiate notability. Google News hits are all about other people with the same name. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. - SudoGhost (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2011 (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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The James and Joe Show[edit]

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

No evidence that this radio show is of the level of notability required for an encyclopedia article Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed a lot of unsourced stuff from this article due to WP:BLP concerns. In my opinion anything discussing living people must be sourced, preferably independently, although a primary source might be acceptable. I googled a bit looking for sources that might allow this to be pruned and redirected to Forge Radio as an alternative to deleting, but so far I have found nothing. I will now prune the James Ashford article, for similar reasons. -84user (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage found to demonstrate notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Reliable third-party sources could not be found (by myself, at least). - SudoGhost (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Saves (song)[edit]

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

The references in the article connect to dead pages and a scan of Google, Google News and Google Books finds nothing to support its notability, as per Wikipedia editorial requirements. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This sounds like something that some people made up over a few too many beers. Qalana (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does seem to be a real song among the rugby crowd [1], but that doesn't mean it rates a Wikipedia article. Nothing at all found at Google News. Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete- for as long as I have been playing ruby we have sang this song. I know ruggers from all over the world that sing it.

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 one valid keep argument did not rebut the arguments that this was just a transient news story. postdlf (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muse fans' boycott[edit]

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

Article that will quickly become obsolete (the band tours in May 2011). The author might wish to start a blog or visit a forum. WP:NOTSOAPBOX. PROD was contested by the author without explanation. Ben Ben (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have significant coverage in 3rd parties. Notability isn't temporary. Obsolete is meaningless in the context of an encyclopedia. Some sources difficult to verify because I don't speak Ukranian, which is also not a reason to delete. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: An encyclopedia is not equal to a newspaper archive.--Ben Ben (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct It simply catalogs events that multiple reliable sources (at any time) felt were worth reporting on. As to being a soapbox, once notability is established, that is a matter of content, not existence. The problems with the article are related to style, and not fatal. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:SENSATION--Ben Ben (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Forgot to mention WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:ADVOCACY--Ben Ben (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment' WP:JUSTAPOLICY Dennis Brown (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Out of ~~policies~~ arguments? Citation:The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy--Ben Ben (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly WP:TRANSIENT, a storm in a teacup. It will all be forgotten next month when the tour goes ahead and the real fans turn up irrespective. Such WP:Fancruft is not notable and has no place in Wikipedia. Looks like some Ukrainians are still not ready for capitalism! WWGB (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:PERSISTENCE as pointed by Ben Ben. We can't say at this point how this will turn out, and we don't need to. Right now this is an ongoing event with no particular transcendence. If it becomes significant then it can be covered in the band's page, or a separate article if appropriate. - patitomr (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article describes notable event in cultural life of Nation with more than 2000 people involved. Facebook group has support comments from people from all over the world. Even guys from musical band "Hurts" (Theo Hutchcraft and Adam Anderson) have mentioned this boycott in their interview ([2]) with supporting words by saying "good luck for the guys from Ukraine. I hope the truth will be on their side.." (from Russian). In any result of event article will be updated to keep the historical facts. By the way, WWGB, it's not good to abuse the Nation while talking about arguments for deletion.Sanaravena (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Sanaravena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oh, I'm not abusing "the Nation", just those individuals who fail to realise that market forces set concert prices. If the concert is full, then clearly there were people willing to pay the asking rate. If they don't buy tickets, then the band or promoter loses money. It's that simple. Bleating on the Internet won't change the ticket prices, but lack of bookings might. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we are not the sheeps to "bleat". Your boorish communication leads to the thought about your prejudice to this event and opinion of such person should not be considered as meaningful.Sanaravena (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Sheeps"???

It's not the first event of this kind. There was a boycott of Metallica fans in Israel a year ago and they succeeded in 4 days. Muse fans' boycott aims the same goal.Sanaravena (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and that boycott did not have a Wikipedia article either! WWGB (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and it's not good that Wikipedia does not have an article describing such historical event Sanaravena (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... it doesn't have it yet. it was shorter with less opposition. Sanaravena (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is Wikipedia not Wikinews. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article throws some light upon an actual probleme in the life of the Ukrainian young people and gives the opportunity to the reader to decide whether to support this action or not. in any rate it gives the INFORMATION. that is the main objective of Wikipedia, isn't it?Olgasavelieva —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

— Olgasavelieva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Muse (band). - SudoGhost (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The effort of making such a boycott is a result of social consciousness extending not only within a certain country. The support of the representatives from various countries proves that it's an interesting phenomenon, which may eventually develop into a powerful way of influence. Fire.Tree (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please, could you cite from the article where it is about ... social consciousness... and ... representatives from various countries... and ... may eventually develop...? WP:INDEPTH and WP:EFFECT Thanks.--Ben Ben (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: ... may eventually develop... - ok, I take that back, it's only my assumption. ... representatives from various countries... - people that joined Facebook movement were meant here. Yes, it can be added to the text, although it's hard to prove by proper references (I'm not sure if links to facebook group members page would be sufficient, and it's impossible to give links to separete comments on facebook). Social consciousness - when people are able to gather to protest, it shows some level of it. Fire.Tree (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ixso[edit]

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

Recreated from a speedy, this is a non-notable Swedish energy drink, written by an SPA. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom nails it: too new, recreated from the ashes of a speedy, no coverage from 3rd parties, created by SPA for promotional purposes. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure spam, totally non-notable. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. FieldMarine (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:53, 9 April 2011 (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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Thunder[edit]

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

Non-notable store-brand energy drink. No real-world content to be had, only repeating the content of the label, and catalog info. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Store brand (generic knock-off) beverage that has no significant coverage from any reliable source. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage found to substantiate notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MelanieN. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 05:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. - SudoGhost (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eurowhite[edit]

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

Seems very WP:MADEUP. No sources found besides Wiki. If not MADEUP, very "slang" like. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:NEO. The slang term IS used, but the word is also the name of several other companies and products. In all cases, none of them have enough coverage. Two years from now, I wouldn't be shocked if the word was more common, but for today, it is not. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This six year old article has never had any references. It is a non-notable subject as evidenced by the lack of WP:RS. In searching on this all I could find on topic were blogs, forums and other WP:SPS sources. It does seem to be a plane-spotting sub-culture jargon term, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic, if it were there would be refs available. It isn't even common enough as slang to be in the Urbandictionary.com. It certainly looks as if it is all WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG via a lack of verification by reliable sources, thus making it original research or something made up one day. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mjroots. Googling reveals no books, no news articles, and the only google search results seem to be forum posts or wiki clones and the like. Fails WP:GNG. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 14:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mjroots. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Seems to be a neologism. Not notable. bobrayner (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like an OR essay, and I can't find evidence of this term being in any meaningful circulation. Kyteto (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete I was the one who originally de-prodded this knowing that the term is widely used in aviation circles, and to a lesser degree to describe a colour scheme overall and in an ethnographic sense as well. That being said, after searching for several days, the only references I could find were simply passing mentions, and since these aren't enough, I have to vote delete. Ravendrop 17:33, 9 April 2011 (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. J04n(talk page) 14:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masood Akhter Khan[edit]

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

Can't find reelable, secondary sources to verify the existence of this artist. Doesn't seem to have garnered as much coverage as the meterologist or the bitumen-supplier of the same name. It's certainly possible that I've missed sources due to language translation issues, but I have attempted searching on both the given English name, some spelling variations thereof, and the script. Additional sources, as always, welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything either, unless he happens to be the Pakistani ambassador to China I don't think he's notable. Hut 8.5 19:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 05:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Not notable. - SudoGhost (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of April Fool's Day jokes[edit]

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

No rhyme or reason to what's on the list and what isn't. There are several terribly-sourced entries on here — the game show section is sourced to YouTube videos or nothing at all. The content was created in wake of a content disupte on the April Fools' Day article regarding example-farming, but whether it's on its own or not, it's still examplefarming. There's absolutely no criterion for what should and shouldn't be on this list, meaning that it will only continue to swell bigger and bigger. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No rhyme or reason to this nomination as it is our editing policy to improve weak articles, not to delete them. See Shameful behaviours for an example of a source which documents a list of this kind. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confused, but keep My gut reaction instantly said to delete, but while I can think of lots of irrelevant reasons to do so, I can't think of an exact policy reason to delete. As is, it appears to be a bit broad and full of referenced but not necessarily notable "jokes". If all the entries in the list were notable enough for articles on Wikipedia, then it would appear to be fine. (ie: Write only memory, etc.). In the end, I have to go with a keep only because it does serve the purpose of organizing lots of entries that can reasonably be grouped together. Maintenance will be a nightmare, but as far as I know, that isn't a reason to delete an article. In the end, the concept isn't the problem, but the article does need some serious trimming to only include particular "jokes" that themselves received significant 3rd party coverage (ie: might qualify for an article on Wikipedia, even if it doesn't have one). Regardless of how the article was started, in the end, April Fools Jokes are a very common thing, and a list of notable events would appear to be kosher with the guidelines here. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a valid reason for deletion. If there are some items that aren't well-sourced, they can be fixed via normal editing. If there is no clear criteria for inclusion, then that can be worked out through talk page discussion. I think that Colonel Warden hits the nail on the head that we should improve weak articles, not delete them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the confusion might be the article's title - perhaps "List of Famous April Fool's Day Jokes" would make more sense. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with the article to warrant its removal. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the problem with adding Famous to the title is the same with adding Notable to the title, something we generally don't do here. It is assumed that the subject is notable, else they wouldn't be here. I agree with you that something seems "wrong" with the title, just not sure how to fix it. I also understand how Hammer might have nom'ed it, at first glance. It took me half an hour of looking at it, thinking about it, changing my !vote from delete, to weak keep, to finally keep before submitting. Perhaps it is the "List of" that creates a knee jerk reaction, with the thought that it could eventually be 1/2 mile long, full of finger pointing on the talk page, with everyone wanting to keep their "pet" joke. Still not a reason to delete, however. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I, too, was expecting to be saying delete, but this is a list with a defined criteria for inclusion (ie, pranks that happened on April Fools' Day). If there are examples on there that are unsourceable, remove them, if they can be referenced, keep 'em in. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has a narrowly defined criteria, and referencing can keep the list managable. --Jayron32 23:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, keep though I have much sympathy with the nomination of articles like this. It can be referenced and/or trimmed, and it keeps this dross off the main article. --John (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Just because all of this is verified doesn't mean that it is encyclopedic. There is no strong criteria for inclusion within the list so anything can appear here if it has been verified as an April Fools Prank. A completed list would have no end and would be useless as a point of reference. I would also oppose a merge back to the main article, since this is inappropriate there as well as here. What we should do is delete this article and summarise the contents within the main article without going into meaningless detail. Them From Space 00:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is a "list of April Fool's Day jokes" indiscriminate? Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list is indiscriminate because it allows any verified April Fools Day joke to be included, regardless of its significance. A completed list under this criteria would have hundreds of entries, mostly insignificant. A mass-listing such as this is no substitute for a properly summarised section in the main article. Them From Space 06:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Actually, if every thing in the list was verified by significant coverage by reliable sources, and was an April Fools Day joke, then not only would it NOT be indiscriminate, but each would be eligible for their own article. I had the same fear you did at first, but the fear is a fear of how to manage the article, which has never been considered a reason to delete any article. I don't pretend that it will ever be complete (again, not a reason to delete), and it may get large (again, not a reason to delete) but it seems that it is a narrow focus, and the key is deleting listings that aren't themselves verifiable. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced, finite and discrete topic, no problems that can't be fixed by normal editing. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see entries that link to a Wikipedia article about them, and others that have references so could surely have their own articles created if anyone wants to take the time and bother. If you have a problem with the article, use its talk page, and discuss any entries you see as a problem. You don't destroy valid content with a mass article destruction, because some of the entries might not belong there. Dream Focus 04:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of "List of ..." articles on Wikipedia that are pointless, however this is one of the few that are worthy of retaining. Mtking (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge back to April Fools' Day. No valid reason for deletion. The article is useful because it contains information about the famous April Fools' Day's jokes and most of the content appear to be verified. If a few more citations added and the article will be OK. LikakiPhotos (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of notable, reliably sourced incidents on this list, and AfD is not intended for article clean-up. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is narrow in scope, as Dennis Brown notes, and thus isn't the indiscriminate list that it could be. Obviously, cleanup is necessary, as noted by others above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Reasonable list. Some items may not be well-sourced enough but that's not a reason to delete the list. Many are reliably sourced and the topic is narrowly defined. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep. This could use a good WP:LAUNDRY cleaning to get rid of the non-notable examples. There certainly isn't a need for the list to contain an example of every single April Fool's Day prank, but notable pranks seem worthwhile. Perhaps it should also be renamed to "List of notable April Fool's Day jokes" or something similar. Though, since this is a list, I lack much of the special understanding about list pages to know for sure if it belongs here. Can someone point me to the list-specific policies? --Tathar (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2011 (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 Plane (Magic: The Gathering)#Dominaria. Consensus is that this should not be a separate article, and wholly unsourced should not be merged. Sandstein 05:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominaria[edit]

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

Unsourced, in-universe article with no independent notability established. Could not find RS in a google search, though there may be some (first-party?) books that mention it. Has been tagged for cleanup since 2006. Perhaps merge to the slightly better sourced Plane (Magic: The Gathering). Ost (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There are obvious alternatives to deletion and the nomination suggests one itself. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that AfD is not cleanup, this page was created by a non-active user more than 5 years ago and it does not have sources to demonstrate notability. I did not see a previous discussion that determined if the subject were worthy of an article and—with years of history, less than thirty people watching the page, and no noticeable previous effort to act on the cleanup tags—I thought that this would be a fair venue to discuss the article. I apologize if I overstepped and I have no prejudice against the requested rescue, but the article's state looks more suitable for transwikiing to wikia. —Ost (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of the locations mentioned in reviews of the game, whenever new places that feature them are added? If the article is eliminated, please turn it into a redirect with the history preserved in case anyone wants to export this to some other wiki. Dream Focus 04:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: wholly unsourced & wholly unencyclopaedic WP:INUNIVERSE WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of fictional localities. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Plane (Magic: The Gathering). Non-notable locations. Looks like all of the characters and locations are not notable, and need to be merged/redirected.

Gerrard Capashen · Freyalise · Jodah · Serra · Thran · Urza · Volrath · Yawgmoth

Dominaria · Kamigawa · Mercadia · Phyrexia · Rabiah the Infinite · Rath · Ravnica · Shandalar

If we could get a consensus to merge all of these, that would be great. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you will manage consensus for merging without getting MTG project on board. I looked at Yawgmoth and wizards website had the maximum 1000 search results returned. There is so much information it is very difficult to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. Clearly all the pages at least need a re-write of the introductions and refs.Tetron76 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a merge isn't that intrusive. They are simply moved/redirected. If people find that they can fix the article, and bring it back, they can. As they are, they aren't notable, and should not be articles. I will notify the project. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would prefer to see them merged and cut down to the information that is needed for an overview. However, there are what counts as a RS for notability issues especially re: www.wizards.com and I am guessing that one or two articles may prove contentious to people with in universe knowledge.Tetron76 (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know for a reliable source to count for notability, it has to be third party(not affiliated with the subject), right? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that sources are supposed to be independent, but I am also aware of the fact that there are print magazines on MTG and that WotC contains content forming more than one online magazine not 'zines. Some of which started out as print versions. WotC also own more than one book publisher name as a result of Hasbro buying pratically everything and some of these books do very well in terms of sales figures. They are also going to make an MTG film according to some newspapers. I am not sure that wikipedia is clear on defining the level of independence if notability allows for comments from experts in the field. While clearly most of the wiki MTG pages should not be there, I am fairly sure that there will be one or two that will be notable for their impact on the game.Tetron76 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

prune and merge to Plane (Magic: The Gathering) most of the content should be removed ie list and descriptions of minor locations in dominaria. Having now done a thorough look for sources. There appears to be no sources discussing from a real world perspective including WotC nor books written on the subject. I found a book based in the realm but doesn't satisfy notability. Since, the domain doesn't appear to still exist from forum chatter, it is clear that the article is overly long. I assume that sites such as wiki.mtgsalvation.com/ will still keep the information and it is not a simple mirror.Tetron76 (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete- indiscriminate, in-universe fancruft. There is not a single source in the article, and all attempts to find reliable third-party material appear to have failed. This article contains no material that could be preserved, either as a standalone article or in a merge. Reyk _YO! 01:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is not likely that this article will achieve any sort of notability (cf: Tetron's reponse above).Curb Chain (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete- All in-universe info, without even internal links to main info source. My bad for modification of article, but was attempting to do major cleanup before seeing delete tag. Even The Elder Scrolls doesn't have this level of planetary detailing.Brinlong (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Merge and Redirect with Plane (Magic: The Gathering)#Dominaria. - SudoGhost (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing reliable in this article. Zero third-party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2011 (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. WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of importance or significance. JohnCD (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Beatson[edit]

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

Not referenced properly. Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 18:12, 3 April 2011 (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Aplin[edit]

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

Came across this new unreferenced BLP. Tried to look online for sources, but could not find anything that would pass our guidelines, and also nothing at all comes up when searching on Google News. She fails our notability guidelines for music. She might have a claim under point 2, but the itunes chart is not a national chart and she does not appear to have made it onto the main UK chart with her EP (as far as I have searched). She's a great singer so she will doubtlessly be notable enough for inclusion one day, but I feel that now is too soon.

Note that I used to have this girl on facebook about 3(?) years ago, so I may have a possible conflict of interest. Cheers. doomgaze (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage that I can find, article seems to be claiming notability through high page counts, which is not a criteria for notability Rehevkor ✉ 17:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signficant coverage in reliable sources. There's this bit but really, she hasn't quite got there yet. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage found to substantiate notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 05:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - SudoGhost (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Acton F.C[edit]

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

Team has not played in the FA Cup (i.e. national cup of England) and does not pass GNG due to no significant coverage. Delusion23 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Delusion23 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played at a notable level. Giant Snowman 17:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:12, 7 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sharoukh Mirza Firouz[edit]

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

Verifiability on a BLP, I'd probably grant notability if the info could be verified for the ambassador's position. Nothing found via searches, the article on his father in the Arabic and English WP's matches in saying that his father's second wife had two sons and a daughter, but the Arabic WP doesn't mention the name of either son (or at least this one), so I'm lacking an Arabic translation of the name. Spent a fair amount of time trying to track the fellow down by looking for references to ambassadors of the era, no luck. Color me stumped. Additional references welcomed, of course. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything, even when I tried an academic database, so pending the addition of a source to confirm this person ever existed it should be deleted. I think you mean the Farsi rather than the Arabic Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 20:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : unsourced, couldnt find reliable sources. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly. I can't find anything either. Pburka (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2011 (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 type of content in these articles is widely accepted as belonging in Wikipedia so long as it is reliably sourced, as evidenced by a plethora of featured and good articles. Ultimately this is a concern of whether there is not enough reliably sourced information to constitute articles separate from the main articles. For these articles in general, it has not been demonstrated that this is the case. Jujutacular ^talk 13:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal relationships of Paul McCartney[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

These "personal relationships of" articles are really no more than coatracks on which to hang large quantities of gossip (some well-sourced, some not so) regarding the associates of prominent people -- gossip that for the most part lacks sufficient encyclopedic value to be included, at this level of detail, in the primary biographies. While not everyone mentioned still survives, the articles include problematic BLP content, and often include information regarding deceased persons which is more titillating than encyclopedic. Information, like much found in these articles, which plays a minor part in full-length biographical works, is given undue weight when excerpted and given prominence in short Wikipedia articles. In the absence of any discernible relationship to the genuinely significant aspects of the subjects' careers, such content should neither be included in the subjects' biographies nor given greater prominence by spinning off separate articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nominator. The properly referenced aspects of each article can be merged to the articles on their respective subjects - assuming that the material is not already there. Otherwise, there is a lot of innuendo pretending to be fact (especially in the Elvis article) and the encyclopedic value of the ex-girlfriends of a few pop stars is nil. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All standard biographies on these celebrities include several chapters on their personal relationships. As the main Wikipedia articles are too long, the material has been put in separate articles. Different readers desire different levels of detail concerning the relationships of a celebrity: some readers need just a quick summary and are satisfied by the very short information in the main articles; more people need a lot of info and therefore find the "personal relationships" articles suitable to their needs. That's why they have been created. Even gossipy information about the celebrities' relationships is part of their history, the more so, as megastars such as Jackson, Presley and Sinatra are widely known as sex symbols and several books and gender studies have been published discussing their affairs and relationships. Onefortyone (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons as others have given above. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Beautiful argument, but those articles pass every rule and policy of Wikipedia, even Jackson's is a GA (which I suggest you to take to GAR before even try to nominate it here). Also, this is not a page for suggest merging, even when their biographies are excessively long to merge those articles. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 23:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, the nominator's concerns seem to be limited to improving the article, not to deleting it. If we were to merge the relevant content into the main one, we cannot merge and delete. And the concerns about sourcing should be brought to the talk page, not debated here at AFD. (A cursory glance shows that most of the refs in the mentioned articles are sourced to hard biographies instead of gossipy websites.) And as Tbhotch points out, the fact the Michael Jackson article is a GA means it is inherently notable and should be de-listed before nominated for AFD. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also have to agree with the nominator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.183.44 (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom (specifically WP:COATRACK). - SudoGhost (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. These are all valid subtopics that have been split off due to size reasons; one has even been identified as a Good Article. The deletion rationales above largely smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:VAGUEWAVE, dismissing these subjects as "gossipy" despite the fact that they are reliably sourced (and not to tabloids) or nonsensically claiming that they put WP:UNDUE weight on one subtopic when they are each one article of many about each of these individuals (in the same way that Frank Sinatra filmography puts undue weight on his film career, I suppose). The comment that these would only play a "minor part" in biographies is unsupported and simply untrue, as Onefortyone notes. Each of these individuals was in multiple high-profile relationships with separately notable people. I imagine there are people who would prefer Wikipedia biographies stick purely to summarizing careers and notable achievements, but whether we like it or not, the personal lives of celebrities is a significant focus of public and media attention, and it's necessary for a full understanding of who they were. I note that only two other articles in Category:Personal relationships by individual were not included in this AFD: Personal relationships of Alexander the Great and Personal relationships of James I of England. These don't pose WP:UNDUE problems? Or is it just more acceptable when the "gossip" about who was banging who comes from Plutarch? Not to suggest that Elvis is as historically significant as Alexander the Great, but I honestly don't see a difference between maintaining those split-off articles and these, and the OTHERSTUFF comparison is relevant because the deletion nom here is attacking the very concept of having personal relationships as a split-off subtopic. Other articles on purely personal, and even speculative, biographical detail include Vincent van Gogh's health, Leonardo da Vinci's personal life... It's not for us to hold our noses in the air and decide that aspects of notable subjects that have been the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources are too low for us to include, and we certainly shouldn't privilege one subject over another just because it's in textbooks and the other has been tabloid fodder. postdlf (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I excluded the other two "personal relationships" articles because they did not raise any BLP issues, making them unsuitable to include in a group nomination which invoked WP:BLP. But I do think that "privileging one subject over another just because it's in textbooks and the other has been tabloid fodder" is a legitimate argument, reflecting principles expressed in the WP:BLP policy as well as WP:RS.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that a subject has been covered in tabloids is irrelevant if we are not using tabloids as sources. And I see BLP mentioned above, but I don't see an actual deletion argument based on BLP. Nor can I imagine one that would apply to articles that are primarily about deceased people, nor articles primarily about celebrities who are by definition not private, nor articles that include content on non-celebrities because of their publicly known association with celebrities. And in many instances, film studios, record labels, or the celeb's own PR agent purposefully publicized these relationships. It's standard practice for top celebrities to make relationship-related announcements through press releases or to give interviews on the subject, even if they are a tier or so down on the fame scale from these article subjects (such as Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke: "In an interview airing Friday on ABC's 20/20, Hawke discussed the end of his five-year marriage and why he thinks things with Thurman dissolved." "Uma Thurman spoke publicly about the breakup, telling Oprah Winfrey on the talk host's program Friday..."; "Thurman's spokesman later confirmed the engagement [to Arpad Busson").

If you look at the Sinatra article for example, every one of his wives and every one of the relationships described and every one of his children is/was a celebrity in their own right and has their own article. Even Debbie Rowe, who only became notable by virtue of her marriage to Michael Jackson, has her own article, is described as having given interviews (however infrequently) and making statements to the press through her attorneys, and was portrayed in at least one notable dramatized work. There's obviously much less of a privacy concern with people who willingly engaged with the media (or, arguably, anyone who willingly got involved with A-list celebrities such as these whose every move is reported), and whose stories have even been dramatized, above and beyond their simply being widely reported. So the only relevance BLP has here is editing concerns: making sure everything is reliably sourced and that there isn't unnecessary private detail (which you probably think all of these articles are) that isn't relevant to their widely-reported relationships with these celebrities or other aspects of their public lives.

It would be a different question if we were talking about a standalone article on a housewife rumored to have slept with Sinatra once, or tabloid reports alleging that said housewife and her husband held a key party prior to her getting banged Ol' Blue Eyes. Nor are we talking about detailed articles on the relationships of barely notable cartoon voice actors, game show hosts, or an infomercial spokesperson; it's hard to get more famous than Jackson, Elvis, Sinatra, and McCartney are/were worldwide. So I see no unfixable BLP issues here that would compel deletion. postdlf (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Marasmusine (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darren C[edit]

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

BLP does not contain any reliable sources. Fails WP:N The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Nom. Phearson (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - SudoGhost (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2011 (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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kitiona Pasene[edit]

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

This article was previously BLP Proded. That tag was removed without any references added. As such remains in violation of BLP. A search of this persons record on the team he plays for show no statistics. As such appears to fail WP:NSPORTS. Enfcer (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Article subject lacks GHIts and GNEWS of substance to support article and individual's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2011 (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. Tikiwont (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kalle Närhi[edit]

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

I had previously BLP Proded this article. That Prod was removed without any references added. As such this article violates WP:BLP also the team he plays for is a red link, as I am not to familiar with Football association teams this article may also not meet WP:NFOOTY and the only club reference I found on a google search is not in english for me to determine. Enfcer (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTY, I also cannot find any reliable sources relating to this player. doomgaze (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article claims that "He is widely considered to be Finland's greatest talent of all time", but I couldn't find any mentions at all when searching Finnish news sources. Probably a hoax, but certainly not notable. Asilv (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence he played at level required for NFOOTBALL notability, no in-depth coverage. Not entirely convinced he played U-19, (was added to WP article on U-19 side by IP, but unsupported by any evidence). Club he appears to play for seems to be low level amateur.--ClubOranje^T 10:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quite easily fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I note that the BLPPROD has been re-added to the article whilst this AFD is running; per WP:DEL "Deletion discussion trumps proposed deletion, so for a page listed on both, the former takes precedence" it should be removed as a redundant notice. Fæ (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO, it is not redundant and should not have been removed in the first place. Per policy, "...the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article." which it currently doesn't. Also, per Wikipedia:BLPPROD#Relationship_with_other_policies_and_processes part 1, "the proposed deletion tag should be left in place in case the speedy deletion is rejected", the same should apply to AfD tags "in case the AfD is unsuccessful". (raised at WT:BLPPROD) If this article is kept after 7 days it should still be deleted under WP:BLPPROD policy 3 days later.--ClubOranje^T 07:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to where the first quote you made comes from, I'm assuming it is not from DEL? Your second point appears to extend the policy beyond what it actually says, which is limited to the relationship to speedies rather than AFD. Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people for the first quote. Yes, my second point extends beyond... that is the point; it should extend beyond (in my opinion).--ClubOranje^T 09:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there is nothing in the BLPPROD policy to suggest the BLPPROD tag should be kept once an AFD is raised or that the processes described at DEL are superseded. I suggest that further discussion is kept to the BLPPROD discussion page rather than here as most of this is unlikely to affect the outcome of this AFD case. Fæ (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether real or a hoax, he fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG by a country mile. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant hoax, no sources, no google hits, false info , has'nt played in a professional football match. Wummer71 (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't even find the club site. There's www.ikfrisco.se/ but that's a Swedish domain and doesn't work anyway. At 15, he's too young to have done anything of note - especially as if he had it would be at the top of the gsearch and it isn't... Peridon (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2011 (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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hostyle Clothing[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Mainly Advert. Fails WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost no mention in independent sources. The references provided (a few business listings and a single magazine article about an employee) do not establish the notability of the company. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fails WP:CORP. Nothing in gnews. Also looks like WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CORP. Not notable, possibly WP:SPAM. - SudoGhost (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2011 (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. Nobody but the author of this original research is in favor of keeping the article. Sandstein 06:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Relativity[edit]

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

Seems to be WP:Original research or pseudoscience. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting the inclusion of the term Evolutionary Relativity in an Encyclopedia is not an example of Original Research. While the external reference links need to be reformatted into appropriate hyperlinks using the title of the articles instead of the web addresses, and the referenced articles should perhaps be discussed a bit in the body of the article, the concept or construct of Evolutionary Relativity has already been established as a culturally and scientifically meaningful one.

Taking the concept into the universe's acknowledged potential for other intelligence is a logical and sustainable move, a move found in many histories of ideas at Wikipedia, where references and discussions of further applications and theories involving a concept have flourished without deletion.

Asserting that possible higher intelligence in the universe belongs in a discussion of Evolutionary Relativity is not pseudo science by anyone's standards. The particular theory of higher intelligence that is the vehicle for asserting the appropriate application of the concept of Evolutionary Relativity in this article can be discussed separately, in its own right, as psuedo science or a breakthrough in study and reasoning, but the theoretical vehicle does make it very clear that Evolutionary Relativity can be applied to the possibility of higher intelligence. Wikipedia often has interesting, challengeable theories that help illuminate other abstract concepts and theories

Marcoslee (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)— Marcoslee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Gobbledegook - two buzzwords that have popped into the pop-science subculture: 'evolutionary' and 'relativity', put together. Wow, dude, that's so, like, cool and scientific and stuff, man. The article is not coherent. If this is a widespread pseudo-scientific phenomenon, it may be worth an article as such, but the only references here are a random book and a web page ('journalofcosmology.com/Aliens100'). Unless more can be provided, this ought to be deleted. A few weird outlying articles have already given Wikipedia already an unfairly bad name for partisan garbage in the humanities - this is the sort of thing that might extend that to the sciences too. Delete! 41.185.146.90 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references are mostly of one author, presumably the author of this article (or fan). If there is any scientific literature on the interface of either the special or general theory of relativity and evolution, this article doesnt reflect it. I doubt there is, and the use of the word "relativity" as a label to imply some sort of paradigm shift in another discipline is overdone and lame, esp. in this case. If this author publishes a print book from a major publisher, and gets LOTS of press, even press excoriating him for his ideas, then id be glad to create an article on that, but again, nothing here to salvage.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not sure I would describe this as junk science, junk everything would be more apposite. Formally, no reliable sources exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Evolutionary relativity” has been argued extensively by Noah Greenstein in the first external link of the article all the way to the level of molecular physics, but I don't think it is essential to have that kind of connection. Processes in biology and evolution can be conceptualized and measured in terms of time, space and movement. The possibility of a physical connection between physics and biology, or even between physics and linguistics, as in some discussions by Ernst Cassirer or Noam Chomsky suggest a vibrant idea with useful applications, although some anti-evolutionists would be reviled by the very idea of such a godterm of physics being applied to a bio-environmental process they question.

Socio-culturally, socio-psychologically and politically, the term may have racial implications and this tendency may even be applicable to other intelligent species in the universe. As used in the Krangle argument, earthling’s various versions of God may all be the one highest evolved Singularity of the universe playing a dramatic role in human history. Compare Copernicus and Galileo upending Ptolemy. This is more than a paradigm shift. This is an argument that is compatible with the recent moving of the former Wikipedia entry entitled “The Singularity” to a new entry called “Technological Singularity,” the enterprise and technology friendly idea of a singularity every now and then from the Silicon Valleys in the clouds. A The Singularity concept requires the kind of thinking apparent in the instant case with more work and organization, maybe a move to the little Superintelligence entry, but I think it can and should have its own entry.

Keep “evolutionary relativity” and give Krangle the right to have a link to his lulu.com self-published Revolution or Extinction because it is a totally free download and not a commercial sales opportunity, and it will help to illuminate the important questions in play here.

Let Wikipedia launch this theory of evolutionary relativity as it applies to a highest operational intelligence within the universe in order to expand the philosophy of science and communication implications of the possibilities of higher intelligence. God, The Singularity, Superintelligence, Evolution and Evolutionary Relativity, Technological and Social Scientific singularities, etc.

Marcoslee (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)— Marcoslee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Lets not and say we did. Sorry, thats not the purpose of Wikipedia, read up on what constitutes an article. Its not our job to peer review new scientific and cultural paradigms and publish them. Xxanthippe is absolutely, precisely correct in their final comment. Refute their argument with reliable, third party commentary on this subjects importance, otherwise post the material on a blog, and good luck with that.(seriously, good luck in the world of ideas, especially as we approach the Omega Point)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A concept such as "evolutionary relativity" immediately means something to everyone and can contribute to mainstream discussions of a The Singularity, singularities, God, superintelligence, etc. I do not completely understand the kind of hostile resistance to it I am seeing here. I suggest the term can participate in the further important development of some of the most exciting and influential ideas that we are working with today, beyond the preliminary ways it has already begun being used today in biology and linguistics.

Marcoslee (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SYNTHESIS that advances a stream of blather. --Lambiam 19:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the comments in this discussion except one has presented any substance to back up any of the claims that the entry of "evolutionary relativity" does not fit Wikipedia's needs and rules except one discussing the need for more references. Well, there are more references now and there has been a rewrite of the discussion of this interesting and useful concept. It is applicable for discussion of a hypothetical or reported higher intelligence in the universe and that is not research. It is a fact based on common beliefs and facts about those beliefs and their implications. Not everything is someone else's or your research. This term is going to get bigger and be part of a needed discussions regarding The Singularity, which needs to be decoupled from Technological Singularity. Where are the giants of those areas on this? You'll be embarrassed later on if the Wikipedia system misses this, now because it doesn't have anyone qualified to administer a decision on this.

Marcoslee (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll explain in more detail. This article is not suitable for wikipedia because it is original research: "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists. That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."

In terms of each of the links you've provided:

http://journalofcosmology.com/Aliens100.html - I find no mention of the term "evolutionary relativity" here.
http://www.groundreport.com/Health_and_Science/Consequences-of-Relativity-in-Evolutionary-Biology/2835950 - ground report is a website on which anyone may publish a report, so it doesn't meet the reliable source guidelines
http://books.google.com/books?id=-wt1aZrGXLYC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=evolutionary+relativity&source=bl&ots=92VC55NXgq&sig=fl4KzXgqNspQdNNyqSkkrggnGBc&hl=en&ei=IUGbTa6bIZC2tweQxJDcBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=evolutionary%20relativity&f=false - I see no mention of "evolutionary relativity" here, just some pages that happen to contain both words.
http://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/general-relativity-in-evolutionary-biology/ - Blog, not a reliable source
http://books.google.com/books?id=5aNwSImFZhUC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=evolutionary+relativity&source=bl&ots=SNG7sZMdRH&sig=4H4y-4GXhu0M1JC-kwhQvBq8DTM&hl=en&ei=JZCXTdjzBomztwfAuqyVDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=evolutionary%20relativity&f=false - Book discusses "evolutionary relativism", a concept that doesn't appear to be related to this article
http://www.newbookforanewworld.org/chapter-26-the-systems-theory-of-human-evolutionary-behavior-and-the-theory-of-evolutionary-relativity-you-thought-the-title-of-this-chapter-was-a-joke-didn%E2%80%99t-you/ - this doesn't seem to meet the reliable source guidelines
http://rbsp.info/rbs/RbS/PDF/spie08.pdf - The term "evolutionary relativity" is not used anywhere in this document.

There is no evidence of the the term evolutionary relativity being used in any reliable sources, so no way to verify your account of what it is. We can only write the article once the idea gets significant coverage in reliable sources, it is not wikipedia's job to launch this theory. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may be "a battleground" here over "evolutionary relativity," but the term is not part of propaganda, advertising and showcasing. It is a serious philosophical, linguistic and scientific term. There is no product in play here. Some of the references I have posted were to support other aspects of the entry's discussion and there were more references to Evolutionary relativity in the references than you have pointed out. "Evolutionary relativity" does not necessarily have to be a theory in the sense that Einstein's theory is in terms of hard science, yet there are encyclopedic facts comparing physics and biology in terms allowing for the application of the concept of evolutionary relativity in that sense:

"In biology, as in physics, there are both temporal and spatial dimensions. The temporal dimension of biology is measured in terms of generations and the spatial dimensions are measured in terms of mutations. To describe the motion of a species, i.e. how a species is evolving, we do so by stating its velocity. Just as in physics we have velocity = meters per second, in biology we have velocity = mutations per generation. Each kind of mutation is analogous to a direction; changes in physical structures x, y and z are graphed just like directions x, y and z. Species move through this evolutionary space-time by reproducing."

Using the term in further ways, such as in a discussion about other, higher intelligence in the universe is a natural and Krangle is doing it.

The need to compare The Singularity and anything SU or any singulatarians are doing is philosophical and linguistic work, encyclopedic work, in deed. "Evolutionary relativity" can, is and will help do this work. Those are the issues on this and the question that will be asked later is where was the support for this besides me. Where is some singularity input! Marcoslee (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, improve, or merge or redirect. Look at how "Evolution in Variable Environment (EVE) has been handled for over a year in a state of hopeful improvement. The article even posits evolutionary relativity, although it does not articulate the term. "Evolutionary Relativity" is more conceptually fundamental and applicable to wider and deeper discussions of this nature, yet it has been treated with hostile disdain. Why hasn't "evolutionary relativity" been supported and helped to be presented more adequately, like this other evolutionary concept? I do not see why "evolutionary relativity" has not met with a thoughtful interest in seeing its successful inclusion.

Here is the template and how "Evolution in Variable Environment (EVE) is presented in Wikipedia---

The topic of this article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (November 2010)

This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available. (April 2010)

"Evolution in Variable Environment (EVE) is a computer program designed to simulate microbial cellular behavior in various environments. The prediction of cellular responses is a rapidly evolving topic in systems biology and computational biology. The goal is to predict the behavior a particular organism in response to a set of environmental stimuli..." Marcoslee (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you gave your recommendation. As stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD: "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." You also did not disclose that you are the article's creator and sole contributor. --Lambiam 20:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to try and wind up with two votes, and I have fixed the record. I don't believe in a vote and believe a fair consensus requires more interaction about what is philosophically, linguistically and semantically acceptable about "evolutionary relativity," not just that certain people almost seeming like they have been recruited (and mostly in unhelpful ways) to deny its actual and hypothetical uses. And, I thought my authorship was known and have been hoping for contributors to this especially young entry. Why have only the naysayers found their way here? "Evolutionary relativity" should have a huge gang of supporters including very big names, and it will. Anyone who cannot see that is fooling himself and the hostility the concept has found here, rather than supportive and facilitating input has been disheartening.

Marcoslee (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above, Physics is all gnomes went out of their way to explain in detail and at length why this article does not belong in Wikipedia, but you ignore this and instead argue against a strawman. The hostility you perceive is not against the concept but against your soapboxing and ignoring our content policies. --Lambiam 06:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:OR. Possibly WP:FRINGE as well. - SudoGhost (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 64 matches for “evolutionary relativity” at Wiley publishers

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-WILEY2_SEARCH_RESULT.html?query=evolutionary%20relativity

There are 12 results for: evolutionary relativity in Evolution, a particular Wiley journal listed by Wikipedia http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results

The NYT published an article about The Singularity, which repeatedly uses the idea of “evolutionary relativity,” and no one calls these futuristic contemplations “fringe.” The article runs over 5000 words.

Merely Human? That’s So Yesterday By ASHLEE VANCE Published: June 12, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/business/13sing.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage

“They believe that technology may be the only way to solve the world’s ills, while also allowing people to seize control of the evolutionary process. “

“We will transcend all of the limitations of our biology,” says Raymond Kurzweil, the inventor and businessman who is the Singularity’s most ubiquitous spokesman and boasts that he intends to live for hundreds of years and resurrect the dead, including his own father. “That is what it means to be human — to extend who we are.”

“…challenges from religious groups that see the Singularity as a version of “Frankenstein” in which people play at being gods, and technologists who fear a runaway artificial intelligence that subjugates humans….”

“Some of the Singularity’s adherents portray a future where humans break off into two species: the Haves, who have superior intelligence and can live for hundreds of years, and the Have-Nots, who are hampered by their antiquated, corporeal forms and beliefs.”

An encyclopedist, a philosopher, a semanticist can recognize that "evolutionary relativity" is being discussed.

The term is applicable because of the meanings of "evolution" in all its extensions and "relativity" in all its extensions. There is no need to present more research in a case like this, only rationale. The term has been found in print and only using some preliminary Googling. Only more writing and organization that perfects the presentation of the range of applications of "evolutionary relativity" are needed. The process here reveals a reversal of the goals we are supposed to be working with. I haven't finished scouring all the articles in the NYT and the academic literature and journals. Thinking people can apply "evolutionary relativity," have, and will in learned discourse. Marcoslee (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing we will all be "Have-Nots" then...

The New York Times article was interesting but was about 'the singularity', it doesn't mention 'evolutionary relativity'. The Wiley search is just a list of books that contain the two words, we have no idea if they're discussing the same concept as you or not. (I suspect not).--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 16:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. GcSwRhIc (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say that most of the comments are by people that are known to the initiator of the delete proposal, and the further requests for deletion are clique-bound rather than argument bound. "Evolutionary relativity" is a natural, logical concept that applies in many ways to discussions about many things in sociology and technology development, biology and evolution, and it is especially important in discussing higher intelligence in the universe. Evolution is something worthwhile to talk about in relative terms, like linguistics, even if it does not perfectly fit a full blown parallel to Einstein's applying the term to physics. It is a further honoring of Einstein that the term relativity will have been applied to several fields in science and social science.

Marcoslee (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While that may be true, (for the time being at least) it doesn't seem to be a good fit for a wikipedia article, as per the reasons listed. I don't think anyone is stating that it doesn't exist, but that it doesn't fit the guidelines for a wikipedia article. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a hoax. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's time to close this time-wasting AfD. Creator needs to understand the nature of an encyclopedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I've been ganged up on before, as a Jew, as a Muslim and as a Commie, by the government, the Mafia and others. Read my book, but that is not what I have been hyping here. I have used my references to higher intelligence only in order to highlight the potential of "evolutionary relativity." I would be quite amenable to deleting my name and book title entirely and presenting the higher intelligence material as hypothetical in order to provide the reader with the propositions for debate about what different presumed natures of higher intelligence (Hawking's vs others) might create for a singularity oriented younger intelligence. My profile is checkable, my university education, my jobs, listed at my screen name. It’s silly to call the inclusion in a people’s encyclopedia of such a powerful concept for classroom discussion such as “evolutionary relativity” a hoax. It means a lot and has a lot of applicability. It does belong in Wikipedia and does not violate any principle. It is not original research. It needs more organization and more discussion of the range of applications. Marcoslee (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2011 (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) Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 03:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Uther Pendragon[edit]

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

Fixing nomination for an IP, so can't get their rationale. However, after a quick look at the article I'd guess it's for notability reasons. He's done a few bits and bobs, but nothing that should qualify him for an article. I wouldn't be hugely offended if you all disagree, but it's definitely worth a discussion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, interesting eccentric --Snowded ^TALK 18:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An analysis based on Wikipedia guidelines would probably be better....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure I agree with that link, I said interesting eccentric, not just interesting. Personally I think someone prepared to go to those extremes, get themselves arrested in pursuit of,being consistent with that eccentricity, attempt to re-found a religion and generally make the world a more interesting place is notable. --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor justifications aside, he has been covered by more than one source that passes WP:RS (Independent and Guardian). While not the best written, nor the heaviest covered, the subject matter does qualify under general notability. A poorly written vanity piece doesn't diminish the fact that meets the criteria. Fix instead of delete. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dennis Brown. I checked and confirm that the article's subject has been featured as a subject in multiple reliable sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he's no more eccentric then the pope, cardinals, bishops, priests 'or' ministers, rabis, patriarchs etc, etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - bizarre, odd, and twisted. I am so confused. Beats anything at WP:ODD. Bearian (talk)
Keep -- notable by virtue of multiple television intervies, a published biography, & the (various) court recirds. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of right-wing publications in the United Kingdom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced POV article. Indiscriminate collection of articles that lists The Times and The Daily Telegraph with neo-Nazi publications. If some sources describe a newspaper right-wing, we cannot simply accept that opinion as fact. The list of far right publication will be better suited in an article titled List of neo-Nazi publications or something like that. And I believe the article List of liberal publications in the United Kingdom is also problematic. For example The Guardian is a well-known left-wing newspaper, not a liberal one. Reference Desker (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both These political labels are too subjective, relative and open to change. The lists thus violate WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that the concept "List of X publications in Y country" is a valid one. The problem comes in strictly defining and limiting X. This particular list is not acceptable for POV reasons because it lumps together mainstream conservative and neo-fascist publications as if they are not differentiable. Which, of course, would lead to conservatives being pissed off and making their own list lumping together, for example, a List of left-wing publications in the United States including the New York Times and The Nation with the publications of the Progressive Labor Party and the Revolutionary Communist Party. And around and around we go with edit wars, AfD challenges, vandalism, and so on, as the partisan mice play. If one wants to make a List of neo-fascist publications in the United Kingdom, that would seem fine. If one wants to make a List of conservative publications in the United Kingdom, that would also seem fine. Those would be valid navigational tools that would be of service to Wikipedia users... But not this POV-inspired mixed list. Carrite (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC) last edit: Carrite (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, without prejudice to recreation of properly sourced. Might be a case for an article that lists publications regarded as right-wing by third-party sources if these are listed, but this is simply the author's opinion. Also, note that not everyone agrees fascists are automatically right-wing - certainly the BNP aims itself at the underdog (provided the underdog isn't gay, black, Arab or Jewish). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong NPOV cleanup, then see what's left Carrite hit it on the head, the trick is the inclusion criteria which must be specific and verifiable. For this purpose self-identification or a wide-spread and non-controversial attribution should be the standard in my opinion. By wide-spread and non-controversial I mean that every political party loves to tag anyone that writes critically of them as biased, those claims should not be taken as a reliable source. HominidMachinae (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"not acceptable for POV reasons because it lumps together mainstream conservative and neo-fascist publications as if they are not differentiable" Rubbish. It lists mainstream conservative publications under the section heading Right wing and neo-fascist publications under Far right. By the same token, all we ever hear at AfD nowadays is interminable whining about how articles are PoV because the content has to be judged for inclusion. PoV describes the decision by authors in creating content, not the process of choosing what goes in an article. If editing were PoV, then the process of judging content to be PoV would itself be PoV. Enough of this crap. Anarchangel (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom asserts that we cannot accept the interpretation of reliable sources. "If some sources describe a newspaper right-wing, we cannot simply accept that opinion as fact" Have a little look at WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Delete voters here are quite happy about judging publications to be "mainstream conservative" and "neo-fascist", yet declare themselves incapable of making those distinctions when it comes to defining inclusion. The deletion arguments disprove themselves.Anarchangel (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that it is too much of a value-judgement. It's like having lists of well-written publications, lowbrow publications, serious publications, evil publications, successful publications &c. Newspapers and magazines, by their nature, contain a large number of different items in each issue, written by numerous authors from numerous perspectives. In this respect they are like Wikipedia which is variously accused of being left-wing, populist, US-biased, &c. One can cherry-pick examples of sources and details to support such positions but this is the stuff of polemical op-ed, not encyclopaedic fact. It is our policy to keep polemics out of Wikipedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for all scholars to immediately stop whatever they are doing and spend however long it takes to come up with some better terms than right wing and left wing, and to replace slippery and muddy links between historical political groups and modern ones, eg Fascism. Too much to ask, you say? Well, the extent to which that is too much to ask is the extent to which those phrases are mainstream scholarship, unfortunately.

In the meantime, we should not be saying nothing at all, just because we can't say what we want to say. I am right behind scrapping the elitist WP policy on RS and replacing it with content-based rules, because the assertion at the heart of RS is less accurate than a case-by-case analysis of content, but that is not likely to happen either. Anarchangel (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the right wing list with citations. I left the far-right, much harder to cite, out. However, I feel that to leave it deleted is to trade the responsibility of eternal vigilance for the dubious ease of hoping the problem will stay away. Anarchangel (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole world of difference between project/talk pages and mainspace pages. Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia editors often express their own opinions on the subjects of articles on associated pages such as deletion discussions. However, that cannot possibly be used to justify unsourced opinions in the mainspace. As I said, I have no objection to a list of newspapers considered to be right-wing provided the citations makes it clear who is saying this, but we can't have article which does nothing but present disputed opinions as fact. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are ok with it as long as it is sourced? Because that is quite doable. Anarchangel (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to put that as a maybe rather than a yes. The difficulty is that anyone can pick out a reference from a reliable source that calls The Times right-wing, left-wing, liberal, authoritarian, Monster Raving Loony or anything else. You could show a pattern of descriptions from a variety of reliable sources, but even that would be straying into WP:OR. Having looked at articles about the papers themselves, they tend to portray political allegiance by which party the papers supported at previous elections, which is probably the least subjective you can be. However, given the way this deletion debate is going, a better home for this might be Political allegiances of UK newspapers. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Colonel Warden. This is an article that will be POV no matter how well sourced it could be, with many of the sources disagreeing and contradicting eachother. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV problems are almost certainly insuperable. --Folantin (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Fagin[edit]

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

Delete: pretty blatant promotionalism; questionable independent notability. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vanity piece for a successful but not particularly notable doctor. References aren't true 3rd party and no real claim is made that would pass WP:N. Borderline speedy but best handled here. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill urologist. The article itself is pure copyvio, and can be found word-for-word on his facebook page. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pika software builder[edit]

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

lacks coverage in 3rd party sources, does not meet notability guidelines Supplied references are primary sources or simple download links. PROD was contested without explanation. Muhandes (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 17 sources cited, 16 are of the subjects website, the last is the download page from download.cnet.com. Per nom. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per dennis Pass a Method talk 11:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just no 3rd pary coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks coverage in 3rd party sources, bordering on spam RadioFan (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:53, 6 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikazuki Jujitsu[edit]

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

No assertion of notability made in the article, and a search for sources failed to find support for notability. Janggeom (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no verifiable refs Pass a Method talk 11:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability in the article and I found no sources that support notability. In fact, this press release [3], combined with the article's claim that San Pedro, CA is its world headquarters, suggests that the organization's first dojo will be opening on April 5. Papaursa (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an article about what appears to be a new martial art that clearly fails WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:53, 6 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Linux[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Defunct retailer, no claim to or indication of notability (WP:ORG), no third party sources. Would be speediable as WP:CSD#A7, but there is an AfD from 2005, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything Linux, where the article was kept. Since then, our standards for inclusion have evolved considerably, and that AfD would now probably be closed as "delete". Sandstein 08:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reproducing here the e-mail sent to info-en-v@wikimedia.org (Ticket:2011040110001763) that led me to initiate this discussion:

"Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Linux
this page is like a commercial page, promoting an online shop in Australia called everythinglinux or elx
Wikipedia should not contain this commercial promoting page". Sandstein 08:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is simply a business that tried and failed to sell Linux related goods, distros and "stuff", but doesn't appear to be notable for anything, not achieving significant coverage in any 3rd party publications. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per dennis Pass a Method talk 12:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dennis. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 05:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. - SudoGhost (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2011 (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. Notability not established, and no relevant arguments to the contrary. postdlf (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All Caps (band)[edit]

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

The creator of this article has made some valiant attempts over the last two weeks to find reliable sources for this article, but I just don't feel that they exist. The refs in the article that you could argue are from reliable sources mention only Kristina Horner, and don't mention All Caps at all. A Google News search for "All Caps" reveals more than 17,000 results, but none seems to be about this band. More specific searches for "All Caps" "Harry Potter" and "All Caps" wizard don't seem to mention the band either. I'm afraid that I feel that this group does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. A Thousand Doors (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable refs Pass a Method talk 12:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Shame to see someone's research go to waste, perhaps the creator could move the contents to his/her user page, in case the band does become notable one day. doomgaze (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 05:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - A search on you tube for "all caps" turns up 5,590 results. Their channel on youtube.com has more than 26,000 subscribers. Their music has been widely covered by other on-line artists. This is just the kind of information that wikipedia is uniquely positioned to provide. -- DaveSiberia 10 April 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.130.132.6 (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - The debate here seems to be if they are notable or not. To that I say that they are. They have gained a wide audience from YouTube users who go to see them on tour and their music has topped the iTunes electronic music charts.--Gaiash (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - They are very notable in certain online communities and have a very passionate following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.185.113 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/userfy Doomgaze is correct, the available sourcing doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:BAND, another review like the one in the Communicator and I would have been less certain. I do think there's a chance that this group will eventually meet WP:GNG, and it seems like the article's author has put a fair bit of work into producing an article here that I'd rather not see entirely lost, particularly when a newspaper/magazine article or two might actually establish what our policies call notability, so if the author will accept holding onto it, I'd have no trouble with it being held in userspace as a draft (if that's done, leave a note on it back to this discussion to prevent it from getting MfD'd.) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - It is important to note that this band qualifies as being outside the mass media traditions. As such, the notability criteria in WP:BAND may not be entirely relevant. Farther down the WP:BAND page under the Others heading, the 4th criteria is fulfilled. They have composed numerous songs, the most popular of which has received over 2.5 million views on YouTube. I move that this deletion discussion be discontinued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabiller (talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Of course I am biased on this because I am the main author of the article. Though if this does get deleted I have it saved on my home computer and flashdrive in case they do one day become what is undeniably notable :) I personally believe Wikipedia needs to update their notability standards but thats for another place. While yes an article search doesn't show much for the band a simple youtube search does including their live youtube performance as ALL CAPS for the Project4Awesome live broadcast that was on youtube (which can still be viewed mind you). I also feel that per the WP:BAND I feel that number 5 should be cleared up more because a more than a few is up to the individual like I personally see that a few is 1 or 2 which would qualify DFTBA records as more then a few years old seeing that it is 3 years old and it has notable individuals such as Hank Green, VenetianPrincess, Molly Lewis and internet comedian Michael Buckley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelofdeath67 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would seem that the most common rationale for keeping the All Caps article from the "Do Not Delete" !voters is that they are extensively covered by media outside the "mainstream". While this may or may not be true, the advantage that mainstream media has over, say, blogs or YouTube is that it is generally more reliable and trustworthy, due to its rigorous fact-checking and editorial oversight. We need to use only reliable, third-party sources on Wikipedia to make sure that what we are publishing is verifiably accurate. Anybody can edit, for example, Last.fm and alter it to say whatever they want it to, hence why we can't use http://www.last.fm/music/All+Caps to determine notability. Also, having over 26,000 YouTube subscribers doesn't in and of itself make a band notable, per WP:BIGNUMBER. It should perhaps also be noted that a large number of the "Do Not Delete" !voters have made few or no contributions outside this AfD. A Thousand Doors (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do understand the advantages of the mainstream media. However, I think we can all agree that they don't always latch onto everything that is worth learning about.Mabiller (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Stanzione[edit]

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

Delete. Notability has not been established according to WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 07:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no GNG Pass a Method talk 12:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't believe another one of my pages is going away, but the fact remains that Nikki hasn't done much of anything since MyGamesFever was canceled. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2011 (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan S. Collier[edit]

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

Can't find anything to satisfy WP:BIO. No independent references. Created by a single-use account (see: Special:Contributions/Aptsingville). Vaguely sounds like advertising. Being a businessman and a member of some committees does not equal notability. Fang Aili ^talk 07:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no GNG Pass a Method talk 12:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cullen328. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - SudoGhost (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dixson, Robert James[edit]

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

Only claim of significance is that Many of [his] books have been used all over the world by those who wanted to learn English grammar, usage and pronunciation, particularly American English. The claim is very non-neutral and completely unreferenced. There is one reference, and it does not refer to a claim which shows how the subject is notable. I was unable to find any other coverage of the article. Fails WP:N. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 23:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The article has undergone a major build and now demonstrates a greater body of (granted, not original) work. Misspelling of the author's name by others in listings/searches may be cause for a move or redirect, but not deletion. Dru of Id (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2011 (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. Although the album articles have been deleted, the band maintains notability and meets the guidelines at WP:BAND per Anarchangel's links. The nominator did not advance his argument after being presented with these sources. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unter Null[edit]

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

Sources given are either not independent, trivial, or not reliable. I was also unable to find any usable sources with the necessary claims myself. Also note that there is at least one article concerning an album of theirs which appears to have had equally insignificant (if not even less) coverage, Absolution (Unter Null album). It will either need to be CSDed per A9 if the result of this discussion is delete, or sent to afd if the result of this is keep for its own discussion. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 22:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fell free to delete the poorly covered articles (Absolution (Unter Null album), Sacrament (Unter Null album) and the Sick Fuck (Unter Null album)) - I created them for the sake of completion and had hoped for additional input for others but upon reflection they are not, really, notable enough and have very little coverage outside a select few websites of which themselves provide little information. Eva The Faun (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per author's comment above, I have nominated the albums for speedy deletion, per G7. I am waiting to hear back from him or her whether the statement was also intended to refer to the band's article itself, the subject of this particular discussion. If not, then the AFD here will ensue as planned. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 12:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of the creator's good faith statement of non-opposition to deletion as a request for deletion seems non-intuitive to the point of being peremptory. Add to this the fact that the only article not mentioned, the one under discussion, is then assumed to be a potential candidate for G7 as well. There are links to four other albums in the article, even after the three were removed. Why would the creator think that the article about the band that created them should be removed, if the creator did not mention them in the list of lesser articles? Scanning the article for defects only finds defects. AFD would be a lot less work if nominators had their minds at least open to the possibility of virtues. They pat themselves on the back for being just another cog in the great machine of checks and balances that is WP, but as far as I am concerned, knee-jerk deletionists are just a bug that WP won't, not can't, fix. Anarchangel (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular article will run its course here on AFD because the user has not requested CSD. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 12:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. See above. Anarchangel (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News hit (UNTER NULL returns with 2nd album, 'Moving on', in 3 different versions December 21, 2009 hangout.altsounds.com News) added as source, along with copyediting and layout. Even the most casual of searches (my time already wasted by deletionism, I will do no more) gives Sputnikmusic,[4] Discogs,[5] and ReverbNation.com [6] sources. Give me strength. Anarchangel (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:BAND, reliable sources were found, signed on major label (Alfa Matrix), etc. To the nominator, please read the notability guidelines before nominating.Thisistimothy (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2011 (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. Sandstein 05:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rivian Automotive[edit]

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

Delete. 20 employees? Seems more like WP:SPAM. Two refs are from blog. Only one from one article in local paper. Student7 (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator); I was unaware of a policy regarding the number of employees needed to have an article. There's plenty of sources available, enought to meet WP:NCORP, I think there's enough "reliable, independent secondary sources" available for this to be have an article. The blog used is a perfectly reliable one, it's owned by AOL and has editorial oversight. I also object to the characterization of this as spam, you have no proof of that and it's an unfounded and unreasonable accusation. C628 (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Are you then, associated with the firm? Student7 (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely not. What possible grounds do you have to claim that I am? C628 (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Posturing aside, Autoblog.com is not a "blog" in the traditional sense, which composes both of Student7's concerns. They would appear to be a reliable source. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But it is a media that essentially mindlessly broadcasts any public relations handouts it gets, typical of most industry pubs. We can be sure that the accuracy of what the Rivian handout said, compared to what the webpage said, was accurate. Note that halfway down the page, the blog says "Source Avera Motors." (That is honest!) But not that a neutral source "decided" that Rivian/Avera was important enough and should therefore be covered. Student7 (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that does not exist, therefore this should be deleted until such coverage exists. Mtking (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The company is new and small but that is meaningless to meet wp:n. Some creative searching finds a little coverage, although most of the coverage is about the company changing their name. What is left is mild coverage (including Hyundai suing them over their Avera model name). The total notability (at a glance) is borderline but the article is only two days old, hasn't had much time to develop. Granted, at this time, the lawsuit with Hyundai appears to be getting more coverage than the company itself. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no compelling reason for a excption to the rules on this, when they produce and actual sell a car then look at it again, the world is full of startup compaines that talk big but fail to deliver. Mtking (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Sources look fine to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the quality of the sources is not the issue, the lack of "significant coverage" is however. One is a local paper, the other two are from the same blog. Mtking (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just a tiny company folks. Most convenience stores are larger. Are we going to list all of them? Individually? And, so far, your local convenience store has had more of an impact on society. Student7 (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiu-Nan Lai[edit]

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

After some thought, I feel that this person and her organization are both insufficiently notable to warrant an article for her. Delete. Nlu (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs some serious attention, particularly with some better references, but I'm seeing some significant impact in this person's work, at least based on Google Scholar searches. A reasonable number of citations overall and 2 articles in particular are pretty widely cited. RadioFan (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article in its present form is unacceptably sourced, and a brief Google news search did not help me find anything better, so I don't see any evidence of passing WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. - SudoGhost (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Postage stamps and postal history of Papua New Guinea. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dagora[edit]

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

Appears to be a biography of a subject only notable for one event. No reliable sources that subject is dead, so treating as living by default based on birthdate. At any rate, appears to fail WP:GNG given that the only coverage is that the individual was the subject of a stamp, which is not significant coverage. SDY (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. One editor suggested merging it to Postage_stamps_and_postal_history_of_Papua_New_Guinea#New_illustrated_series_of_George_V_and_George_VI_reigns, but it's already mentioned there and there is little content to merge that isn't already present. SDY (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth considering retaining this page as a redirect to the linked article about the stamps of Papua New Guinea. SDY (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:BLP1E with no apparent WP:RS after a long search. ww2censor (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inclusion in a series of stamps is a likely indication that this person is important and thus likely to have gotten significant coverage for other matters. Such sources are far more likely to be in print than online — since such print sources are far more likely to be in Papua New Guinea than elsewhere, and since Papua New Guinea isn't exactly accessible to me, I have no way to prove this assertion, and thus I'll not say "keep". However, I strongly suspect that sufficient reliable sources exist to demonstrate notability. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the content that's available, it's possible that his father was a notable individual. He was the subject of the stamp at the age of 13, and the purpose of the series of stamps was just to document life in Papua New Guinea. I agree that most people who are put on stamps are notable, but this appears to be an exception. SDY (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: That this person is on a stamp for his jurisdiction is sufficient to establish this person's notability. Anyone who sees this stamp may very well ask the question, "Who is this?" All the more reason to have information about someone as obscure as Dagora. Those who allege that no reliable source is provided fail to explain why they consider the cited 1954 magazine article to be unreliable. It is highly unlikely that this humble individual is still alive at age 92 (or 89) in an underdeveloped jungle country. I remember reading something about his having died in the 1960s, but even I do not propose including that in the article without some reference. Eclecticology (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if dead, WP:BIO1E also expresses doubts about "one hit wonder" individuals. Given that the individual stamp is not notable^{[citation needed]}, I find it hard to believe that the picture of the stamp (absent any other evidence of notability) is a reasonable article. SDY (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW George V's youngest son died at age 13. What did he do that was notable? He was on a stamp. Why hold a Papuan to a higher standard than a Brit? Eclecticology (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A potential heir to an ancient monarchy is a second notable quality even if it was something that he was born into rather than something that he did. I don't think these are apples and apples. SDY (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm a little confused about why this keeps getting relisted. There are two !votes to delete, one general comment guessing that there might be sources but doesn't address the reason for deletion (i.e. WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E), and a keep vote that doesn't address the reason for deletion. Is there something I'm missing? SDY (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blatant lie to say that the make-believe reasons for deletion have not been addressed. Eclecticology (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of a second event or persistent coverage. Being put on a stamp is not a major event in and of itself, and it could be argued that his role in it was not a significant one in that he just happened to be chosen as the subject of a stamp. Unless there's some indication that he was chosen for a specific reason (one comment at WP:STAMPS suggested it might have been a political favor to a well-connected family though we have no evidence of this), he appears to be an "everyman" selected specifically because he was a good representation of the average guy. SDY (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge/Redirect as below. The issuance of the stamp got coverage at the time on two continents from reliable sources (see the three sources I've added to the article, leaving out another reference from the Hartford Courant). I grant that there is an argument that this doesn't reach GNG, I differ, I think it's quite remarkable that we have several on-line sources from the 1930s. ~~I also suspect that the term "son of Oala" has a specific meaning indicating secondary notability, but it may just be a reference to his father's name, hard to say.~~ As to BLP1E, well, I have no problem with renaming/merging this to an article on the stamp or stamp series (see the "see also" I've added), if folks insist, since that would be in accordance with BLP1E, but I think that that's unnecessary given the primary reason we have BLP1E. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, it appears that son of Oala is a reference to Steve being the son of Chief Oala of Hanuabada, so "son of Oala" is not, as I previously surmised, idiomatic. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: I should have said this, because it is relevant: I take the offline source, and the commentary on the article's talk page as to the contents of said article on good faith, as part of my reasoning. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note 3: The stamp series article section linked suggests there is some coverage at "Richard Breckon, "The Stamps of Papua 1932-1941", Gibbons Stamp Monthly, December 2008, pages 68-71.", which I do not have access to. That source is used to reference a claim that Steve served as a public servant, but it's impossible to say without access whether the source goes into greater detail. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with an article about the stamp or the series of stamps, since it seems that many of the sources address them as a group. Speculating and stretching sources about personal details doesn't seem appropriate. There are a lot of appropriate merge or rename articles that some of this material could be moved to. Honestly, I think the coverage at the main article covers what needs to be said, and a separate article is just not warranted, because this article is unlikely to ever cease being a stub or an orphan. SDY (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't mind that merge. (I would personally be tempted to merge in the completion of his father being a chief more than anything else, and if we keep the redirect we should probably merge in Steve's last name, but that's at most a few words plus any relevant referencing, and that's a content issue.) You have a good point that some of the other material feels, well, coatracked, as I come back to this discussion. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Postage stamps and postal history of Papua New Guinea, per Joe Decker, as the issuance of the stamp got coverage at the time but Dagora himself pretty clearly falls under WP:BIO1E. Eclecticology, when the content is merged, a redirect will be left behind; anyone searching for "Steve Dagora" will end up at the relevant section of the Papuan postal history article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So tell me of one other person who has been identifiably featured on a stamp, and who has not had an article an article allowed. I've addressed Dagora's notability, and all I get in response is a link to wiki-lawyering baffle gab, which merely provides excuses for someone's deletionist agenda. Yet this same segment has no problem with Rodney King's notability, and his only claim to fame is that he got beat up by police. Lots of other people have been beaten up by police, but many fewer people have appeared on stamps. I'm not arguing to delete the King article. Dagora has other disadvantages. The King incident was in 1991; Dagora appeared 60 years earlier. King came into prominence in an urban environment with lots of press around; Dagora was from a rural village where they may never have heard of newspapers. King was American; Dagora was from a third world colony where Americans seem to feel that anything is invalid when it does not meet their self-appointed standards. I have tracked down and today ordered a 1972 Encyclopedia of PNG in 3 volumes; it will hopefully have something on Dagora, but it will be at least two weeks before it's in my hands. I would suggest to you wiki-lawyers tha this is a good time to apply IAR. Eclecticology (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, I don't think comparing Dagora to Rodney King makes much sense. Yes, King's only claim to fame is that he was beaten up by police. That said, his beating was the subject of intense media coverage over an extended period of time, and it led to the 1992 LA riots, a fairly significant event in American history. Dagora, on the other hand, was a farmer and mechanic whose only supposed notability is derived from his being on a postage stamp. These aren't similar cases at all.
    You ask me to name "one other person who has been identifiably featured on a stamp, and who has not had an article allowed." You're making a somewhat fallacious argument. Most people on stamps are notable, certainly, but most of those people were featured on stamps precisely because they were notable beforehand.
    I think you're spot on when you decry Wikipedia's notability standards for being partial to Americans and other citizens of developed countries. Press coverage can be shown for these sorts of people (that is, people notable for one event) much more easily if the event occurred in a developed nation. If Dagora was put on a stamp in the United States, I'm sure he would have generated enough press coverage to have a Wikipedia article. To put it bluntly, this double standard sucks. Unfortunately, it's the one we work under. I'd be open to ignoring the notability guideline in this case, if you can provide a good reason to do so.
    As a final note, part of the reason I am, in this case, advocating a merger rather than deletion is that it would be easily reversible. I'm interested to hear what the Encyclopedia of PNG has on Dagora, and perhaps the information in that encyclopedia would be sufficient to split this article back out of the postal history article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2011 (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 Transformers. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smallest Transformers[edit]

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

An article with poor "sources" to support its questionable notbility. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the article says is that these toys exist. The lack of assertion of notability along with the lack of secondary sources makes the article not WP material. Better leave the info where it is, on a Transformers collectors' site. Wolfview (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to a toy list of Transformers lines. This was a Japanese only series, but a popular one there. Mathewignash (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge per Mathewwignash. Popular line in Japan. Stickee (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless the claim of Japanese popularity can be attested through reliable sources. I did a cursory look and didn't find any coverage in independent reliable media. HominidMachinae (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can find no reliable sources on this topic, just a bunch of Transformers wikis and fansites. It's all well and good to claim it was "popular", but that doesn't mean much when nobody can find any reviews or significant coverage. Reyk _YO! 22:45, 7 April 2011 (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. Listed for almost a month with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but of the 2 "keep" !votes one says the parent subject is notable and the other is a WP:ITSNOTABLE vague wave. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dia de Los Dangerous![edit]

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

This article has no sources, contains in plot-only description, and it fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 00:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Venture bro's is notable. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep, notable enough.
- Comment if the article fails our guidelines including WP:GNG, WP:EPISODE and WP:PLOT, most of the Venture Brps. episodes are not notable. JJ98 (Talk) 01:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaunas Museum for the Blind[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG, nothing in gnews [7]. a mere 3 gnews hits in Lithuanian. [8]. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This is mentioned in a lot of literature about Kaunas, and seems to be a notable attraction of the city. Here are some references in print tour guides[9][10], a news report[11], and online tour guides[12] And a mention in a photo caption in The New Yorker.[13]. However, there is possibly some conflict among of these sources as to whether the "Museum for the Blind" is (or was) an exhibit in a gallery[14], a temporary exhibit in a church, or an actual museum[15]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (I created it). In addition to the Let's Go Travel Guides coverage, and the Lithuanian Museum Association site already used in the article, it has significant coverage in the newspaper Kauno diena [16], several paragraphs in Delfi.lt [17], and an entry in the Kaunas County official tourist information website [18]. I think that represents enough coverage.
Yes, there is also a "A unique permanent exhibition 'Museum for the Blind'" at M. Zilinskas Art Gallery, which is a new, nearby, above-ground gallery in downtown Kaunas. See[19] for more info. That's the one featured in the New Yorker. This one is in the catacombs of St. Michael the Archangel Church, as noted in the Let's Go Travel Guides guides to Eastern Europe and Europe.[20], [21]. Novickas (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Useful encyclopaedic entry. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:20, 3 April 2011 (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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Donn[edit]

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

The subject is an actor and web-designer, but there is no indication that he passes WP:CREATIVE or other notability guidelines. Given that the subject's webpage had a Wikipedia logo (linking to the article) slapped on it at the same time that the article was created, I suspect the article may be promotional in intent. There may be a COI with the article creator. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam, but assume good faith with the article creator; assume that s/he isn't familiar with our policies. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I would concur with that... I note that the user has created another article (Don Smoothey) with similar issues. Looking at both articles, he is clearly just cut and pasting another source (I suspect it is the self-published history of Chelsea Masonic Lodge, as that is cited at both articles). Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen respectfully, the copy for both sites that understandably is causing concern was originally compiled by myself for inclusion in The Chelsea Lodge book celebrating the lodges 1st 100 years written by Keith Skues a well known British broadcaster. The book sold out with profits going to various charities, Chelsea Lodge No.3098 is a well known London based Lodge meeting at Freemasons Hall, It was consecrated on 19 May 1905 and its members have & do represent most branches of show business. I would welcome your advice on how best to present both these site for approval to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleyman1970 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, See WP:Donating copyrighted materials for how to properly sort out any copyright issues related to these articles. Secondly, you need to show how these people are WP:notable in there own right - not just by association with the lodge. noq (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly... Have they ever been written about by the media? Are there reviews of their performances by critics? Have they ever won awards for their work? Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability, COI and for being promotional. Eeekster (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and correct, as the issues of COI and sense of being promotional, while quite legitimate, are both addressable. The first issue is corrected by the author understanding WP:COI and refraining from further edits. The second issue is addressed through correction of style with regular editing. As for notability, the sources provided in the article are encouragement that WP:GNG and WP:BIO can be met... again, through regular editing. I'll be glad to tackle it myself and come back to offer the results here at the AFD, as cocrectable issues are not a mandate for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael may I thank you most sincerely for editing and correcting Ray Donn, appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleyman1970 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It is quite rare that a film extra receives any attention for simply being a film extra, so I was quite aurprised at articles that specifically quoted him... in the several different news sources... in 2003, 2004, and 2005, but I can suppose that is due to his being so prolific in his field. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael's edits are a significant improvement... I am still not sure that notability is established, but the WP:COPY issues are resolved. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Praise nom in the hope that other nominations, if they must use the irrelevant (as per MQSchmidt) COI as a rationale, at least use follow nom's example in listing it last. Shame about the deletion vote that used the tautology "COI and for being promotional", but I am grinning inside. Oh, and stunt double for David Suchet as Hercule Poirot sure sounds like an easy job. Not known for leaping about, is our Hercule. I could not swear to it, but I would bet real money that he was more in the way of a Photo double (redirects to 'Body double'. Anarchangel (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2011 (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. Any content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Park (Miami)[edit]

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

Article fails Wikipedia:Notability. There are usable web sites about William Jennings Bryan Park (a city park), but all the web sites about the neighborhood that I have found are advertising sites with no substantive information about the neighborhood -- Donald Albury 13:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Donald Albury 13:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is this a separate entity? Not that I can find. Definitely not in the same separate class or identity of an area as Coconut Grove or Allapattah. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bryan Park is a park. Apparently people also call the surrounding neighborhood Bryan Park as is common in cities. I think the best thing to do with this material is to keep it, but I can also see the argument to merge it to [Coral Way], and the argument to delete. I think the argument to delete is not through the definition of notability, as people by using the name consider the area "worthy of notice", but identifiability, as this is not a government-recognized area. Unscintillating (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - found lots of sources about parks, but I couldn't really find any significant coverage that could provide info on it as a neighborhood. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Coral Way. The neighborhood does seem to exist [22], but does not seem to be sufficiently recognized as an independent entity to have its own Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Coral Way). It is more than obvious in viewing five pages of Google hits that "Bryan Park" is fundamentally an auto-generated cyber neighborhood more than anything real. I did not see one hit linking to an actual reference to it on a human level. No notice of a neighborhood picnic, no Little League team, no Bryan Park General Store; nothing but cyber generated "Reviews", "Maps", "Lists of in" hits, plus one suspect Facebook page exactly mirror-imaging the Wikipedia content. When Bryan Park becomes real and not just a tool for zeroing in on real estate it deserves a page. Meanwhile, how to keep it from being reincarnated as present if reduced to a Redirect in the interim? Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect somewhere. Guess why this is one of the last AFDs open from this day? Because there is a consensus to merge and redirect the article but nobody has actually mentioned where to merge or redirect it to. Kind of an important detail, guys. I'm going to close this and note the result on the article's talk page, an appropriate redirect target will need to be discussed there. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dickson McCunn[edit]

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

Fictional character from a book, that does not meet the rules and policies for having an article (WP:GNG) Mtking (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the character and the three novels into one article covering the books and character. This character is a title character, not simply a major character, in three separate historical books, two of which have decent articles which show importance and probable notability. Having said that, this article doesn't really add any information, so it should really be just a redirect to an article on the trilogy. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Jclemens points out, Dickson McCunn is the leading character in three of Buchan's novels, and at least as notable as any of Buchan's characters except Richard Hannay and perhaps Edward Leithen. Unfortunately, while I am convinced that the article could be improved far enough to demonstrate notability, I don't have suitable reliable sources to hand at the moment. So, unless I find them before this AfD closes, Merge and redirect per Jclemens - if not present as an article on Wikipedia, Dickson McCunn certainly needs to be present as a search term. PWilkinson (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect as per Jclemens. No third party sources to WP:verify notability. But certainly a logical search term in a notable series. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep So the nominator files the AFD for someone else, then votes "speedy keep"? Talk about process for the sake of process. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 812[edit]

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

Talk page rationale posted on talk page: "I have just nominated this page for deletion according to WP:AIRCRASH, Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)" N419 BH 04:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as event is the second structural failure, rapid decompression, and emergency landing of a Southwest Airlines 737-300 in two years. Also, Southwest grounded 79 airplanes in relation to this incident. This grounding led to the cancellation of 300 flights on Saturday, February 2, and 300 more cancellations are expected on Sunday. Covered in numerous major publications. N419 BH 04:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per N419BH and the other rationales stated on the Talk page--a significant event with immediate widespread implications for the airline (and perhaps for everyone else with a 737 fleet).--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2011 (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 under criterion G4. Note that the article was already deleted before the AfD was filed. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dolf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person. Article was deleted in past AfD. Only new reference is to a newsletter. Even if the single new source was independent and reliable, it's not enough to establish notability by itself. OlYeller^Talktome 02:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Previously deleted. Snpp (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect, to Austin Powers (film series)#Austin Powers 4. Non-admin close by nominating editor. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Powers 4[edit]

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

This film is close to total speculation at this point, "announced" or not, and clearly doesn't pass WP:NFF either way as it is nowhere close to commencing principal photography. It is rumored to be in the scripting phase. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Austin Powers (film series) 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Austin Powers (film series), I can't find any reliable sources confirming it's filming.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Austin Powers (film series) until there is something that can actually be referenced. Would normally say to delete, but IMDB has a page for it, assuming in good faith that Mike is likely working on it in some way. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect any sourced content per WP:TOOSOON to Austin Powers (film series)#Austin Powers 4. The topic may well become quite notable in the near future, but for now there is sinply not enough reliable coverage and content to merit being an independent article. NOTE: I just removed the inapplcable film infobox.[23] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm completely fine with a merge/redirect, and, as nominator, will self-close this AFD and implement the merge and redirect. Will probably drop a link to this discussion on the redirect's talk page so consensus against this article existing yet can be easily demonstrated in the likely case that someone recreates the article. I certainly share everyone above's confidence that this will in all likelihood end up deserving an article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:09, 4 April 2011 (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. Discounting the opinion of the blocked sock יום יפהיום יפה. Sandstein 05:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender Pride flag[edit]

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

Like Genderqueer Flag, the subject of this article does not seem to meet general notability criteria. The links given in the article are not from reliable sources and the concept of the flag seems to be self-published with no third party review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You can buy a T-shirt with the flag on it, but no one is talking about it in reliable sources. Per general notability guidelines, doesn't qualify for inclusion at this time. No RS to verify. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More sources added, including The Telegraph. Moreover, the Telegraph does not only speak of the flag, it establishes use of the flag by the Brighton city council, which answers the Nom's concerns that this is not verifiable as not being made up (" concept of the flag seems to be self-published with no third party review"). Anarchangel (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria. --יום יפה (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one but delete the Genderqueer one, There are reliable sources and i will see if I can add some more. Jnast1 (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anarchangel's Telegraph source, I'd also grant some verifiability to Autumn Sandeen's piece here, she's an arguably notable (but as yet-unarticled) trans activist and reliable enough personally on the existence of such a flag, ditto [24], notability of the flag and some verification it's standard from the CBS source here, etc. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dispute that Anarchangel's Telegraph source is supporting evidence for WP:N. The source describes a place which critics are saying flys "logos on bedsheets" and the article is about whether it is okay to fly flags with little recognition, and not a review of the transgender flag which is mentioned among these.

The CBS source shows a picture of the flag but says nothing about it. I would guess that they got their public domain picture from Wikipedia, because not many other sites distribute these things with clear legal licensing.

The glbtq.com source seems to not pass WP:RS and even if it did, the text there seems copied from a mix of Wikipedia and the flag creator's self-published blog about the flag.

Finally Autumn Sandeen's article comes from a reliable source and she herself may be notable, but this is irrelevant as it only proves the existence of the flag and not that the flag has a history which meets WP:N. The flag is a product and I do not doubt that it exists and that some consumers are using it, but WP requires verifiable evidence of notability and the flag's use by a single activist or a even a few activists is not sufficient to meet notability criteria. I would suggest that if this flag is being used by a number of organizations then it is notable. Otherwise, keeping the flag here is only serving to advertise it to people like those who are being cited in some of these sources. I still say delete for lack of indication of notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2011 (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. Per WP:BIG, having a lot of attendants is not a reason for keeping, and having too few is also not a reason for deletion. What matters here is the amount of significant coverage of the reliable sources. The "keep" !voters cite multiple sources, while the "delete" !voters believe that they are too WP:LOCAL. Overall, neither side has made a sufficiently convincing argument to decide the debate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

It has become apparent that there is a Facebook Campaign (read below) by the article subject and creator. There is a blog post linking to this AFD [25]. Please note that this is not a vote, this is a consensus and a weighing of arguments. More often than not canvassing support has a negative effect on the outcome for the canvassing party.

MystiCon[edit]

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

Non-notable local science fiction convention. It apparently was split off from another local convention because of some dispute, but the original convention is not notable enough to have an article, and neither is this one. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:55, 3 April 2011

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I cleaned up cruft here. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Next to useless. May as well have local restaurants publish their menus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.198.253 (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the earth having an entry of "Mostly Harmless" in some encyclopedia or another... (UTC)

Note. From the number of edits from infrequent / unregistered / new editors it would appear that there has been offsite canvassing taking place in support of keeping this article. ^Bongo_matic 14:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I know when I first created the page, I was having issue trying to create a log in, so continued to edit until WP finally allowed me to create the log in. Not sure if that is what you are referring to or not, because you could check the IP I believe, but according to WP's guidelines, it's not an offense to edit without a log in. coffee is the real drink of the gods! (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. A webcomic author complained in a blog post about the fact that this article had been marked for deletion, and mentioned a few other articles that had been deleted before enough time had been allowed for them to garner more information and references. One of the articles mentioned was the article for the author's own webcomic, which this unregistered editor believes has enough of a following to deem appropriate its own article, considering what other webcomic articles exist without dispute, but that is beside the point of this page. The author expressed that he was upset with this article's marking for deletion, but did not tell his readers to come and fight that cause; such was their own doing. However, this turn of events raises the question of what criteria makes a subject article-worthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.224.187 (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to above reply. Upon further reading, it has been clarified that some of the articles the webcomic author pointed out were marked for deletion (not deleted, as previously believed) shortly after their creation, later received enough information and sources to remove the deletion marking and the validity and necessity of the articles has not been questioned since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.224.187 (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cekesner2 responds: I apologize if I have acted in violation of any of WikiPedia's policies in responding to this request to have the MystiCon page deleted. I would like to state for the record that in my private message to Realkyhick I asked this user to cease their attempts at having the MystiCon page deleted or that I would, in accordance with WikiPedia's dispute resolution procedures, submit this discussion to their editorial board for consideration. Aside from that request, I never "threatened" or "accused" Realkyhick of anything in my private message to that user. If the MystiCon page is deleted than you must, in all fairness, delete all the pages on this WikiPedia list as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_science_fiction_conventions . And if this little MystiCon page is violating WikiPedia's "promotional" policies, than the editors of this web site are going to be very busy deleting all the Wiki pages for science fiction conventions, authors, rock bands, politicians, world leaders, ad infinitum. I think the MystiCon webmaster fulfilled WikiPedia's policy stated here in regards to the MystiCon WikiPedia site: Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. I must admit that I am new to WikiPedia and have much to learn. Having said that, I take great umbrage and exception at Realkyhick's suggestion that I be "blocked" from WikiPedia. Why? Because I challenged this user's single-minded desire to have the MystiCon page deleted from WikiPedia? And while I am responsible for promoting MystiCon, I never once stated that the article that MystiCon's webmaster created for WikiPedia was for "promotional purposes". Furthermore, I do not nor did I claim any "ownership" of the MystiCon WikiPedia page. The MystiCon webmaster created that page and it is similar in content to the many other science fiction convention pages one can find on WikiPedia. Thank you and again I apologize for being a newbie. --Cekesner2 (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Cekesner2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Update: Make this a speedy delete instead. An official with the convention, through his post below and on my user page, that the article is intended to promote the convention. He has also tried to claim ownership, against this policy. My suspicions about spam and this article are now confirmed for all to see. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Article does not meet speedy deletion criteria. WP:CSD G11 makes no reference to the intent of the person creating the article. --Goobergunch|? 22:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official person that responded to your very... intense desire to delete this page is not the one that created it. Just because he or she stepped in should not mean that the page should be automatically deleted. I find it very disturbing that you are this driven to delete a page but haven't followed through with the same intent on other convention pages. Why are you so intent on deleting this one conventional page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikefoley (talk • contribs) 01:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)coffee is the real drink of the gods! (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Smikefoley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This page popped up on new-page patrol shortly after it was created, and I happened to be the editor who first dealt with it. Luck of the draw, in other words. If there are other similar articles about sci-fi conventions which you feel may not meet Wikipedia standards, please list them and I will be glad to check them out. In other words, I bear no personal animosity toward this convention, nor you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate it but I was instructed to build onto the page, which I've been trying to do, but have been having to post replies on a number of places on this page to try and ask for a lowering of the angry tone going on. Please remember that this isn't the only page I'll be contributing to or creating, so I'd really like to be given the chance to continue my work. Unfortunately, no one is giving me a second to even breath before hurriedly posting again on the page and getting angry about something someone else has done. Could you please just separate the two and deal with them as different issues, and give me the time to work on the page without insisting on it's absolute and sudden destruction? It's hard, if not impossible, to keep trying to work on it when it's being torn down (before it's completed) and I can't save drafts, while this fast-paced post-post again-post a third time speedway is going on. I still don't understand why this convention page has been singled out and why this has turned into such a... don't even know the word for it, but do you not see my point? It's shocking that one page/thing is being held accountable because of another page/thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikefoley (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)coffee is the real drink of the gods! (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Smikefoley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I can't speak as to the merits or motives over whomever "instructed" you to create this page, but the continuing effort to delete this page lies purely in the fact that it violates two Wikipedia policies: 1) it has been revealed to be promotion of an event, and promotion of anything is prohibited, a policy which is very actively policed; and 2) this event simply does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability. There is nothing personal about this. It is merely an enforcement of longstanding Wikipedia standards, and nothing more. An article about the competing show would likely face the same fate. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. The page does not promote MystiCon. It talks of it's orgins, past and future - exactly as other convention pages on WP do. Let neutral editors deal with this; you're obviously too invested in this as someone that was agitated by someone else's remarks to you. You aren't reliable at this point to make a rational decision, because if you were, frankly, you would have stopped fighting with him/her a long time ago and went to see that what I'm saying is true: the page is set up like the other convention pages - and, hopefully, you would have moved on to something else. You really have me worried with the way you allow your personal anger guide you on how you do things on WP.coffee is the real drink of the gods! (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Smikefoley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep as subject is covered in-depth in multiple reliable third-party sources and crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. The fact that no editor has created the SheVaCon article yet is not relevant, per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, and the "chicken or the egg" conundrum. - Dravecky (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the vast majority of coverage, at least from reliable sources, comes from just one publication: The Roanoke Times. One other ref is from a blog, and the other is from what amounts to a blog — yes, I know there's a paper fanzine component to File 770, but frankly that outfit now borders on just a blog, in my opinion. Frankly, I think this is a part of a trend in Wikipedia where sci-fi subjects get undue weight and treatment compared to other areas. I compare this convention to, say, a semi-annual district convention of the Barbershop Harmony Society — roughly the same attendance, usually covered by local media, and been around for years — but not notable in its own right. (I chose this example because I used to be involved with that group.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File 770 is a six-time Hugo Award winning news publication with online and print components, not "a blog". The solution to any perceived over-representation of any subject is to create more articles in the areas you feel are under-represented, not deletion of otherwise properly sourced articles. - Dravecky (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that any regularly-scheduled (i.e., annual) gathering that draws a few hundred folks and gets a couple of articles in the local paper plus an online mention or two is notable enough for an article? Gee, I better get to work on that BHS Cardinal District Convention article! Sorry, Dravecky, I'm not buying what you are selling. If it drew several thousand people, I might think otherwise, but there's no indication of that here. I also can't help but wonder if this is a part of a battle between the organizers of the original competing event and this one. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"So are you saying that any regularly-scheduled (i.e., annual) gathering that draws a few hundred folks and gets a couple of articles in the local paper plus an online mention or two is notable enough for an article?" Yes. Conventions with hundreds of members are generally notable in their communities. Mundane media are not very relevant in coverage of science fiction community events. Anime conventions get attendance of several thousand, science fiction conventions do not, but it's not the attendance figures that establish notability. FWIW, File 770 is one of the major journals of record of the science fiction community (along with Locus and Ansible). Avt tor (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I offer here that I am the one that made the article for MystiCon and am not involved in any competition. Other conventions with annual attendance the same numbers have pages here as well, and I was actually instructed to create the page here on Wiki, by editors here on Wiki. What you are talking about in regards to a 'competition' is perhaps 3 people from the original group of MystiCon that had personal filings with the other convention. The majority of the people within MystiCon do not. My source is the staff and board of directors listing and the legal filings that article referred to. Oh, and sidenote, I was thinking of creating the other convention page too but it's come to my understanding that they have since dissolved their corporation and no longer have the non-profit nor other statuses they once had. My source for that is federal/tax, notifications sent out to board, the meeting in which it happened and corporation filings. With that in mind, I wasn't even sure if it followed guidelines to be created, so I didn't create it. You know, the rule of thumb of better to be safe than sorry? Anyway, it's a slow project of mine but I'm working on conventions within Roanoke and Lynchburg. My next one is going to be working on the paranormal one that just happened this past weekend, as soon as I get the stats from that convention. Hope this clears things up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikefoley (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Smikefoley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What other editors instructed you to do this? Please provide proof. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you always this...abrupt when speaking to new folks just trying to offer something to help Wiki grow? Your whole tone has been less than friendly and I'm wondering what offended you so much that you're treating people so aggressively. Please refrain from demanding things and try a please and thank you. It goes a lot more further than demands. I'm not on trial here; I'm just someone that, like several hundreds of other people, made a page on Wiki. When your tone improves, I'll be happy to share the information and my apologies for my tone, but you've been disrespectful and there's no excuse or reason for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikefoley (talk • contribs) 01:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Smikefoley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm abrupt when I have to be, and when your cohort posts a message on my talk page with all sorts of accusatory and threatening language, I tend to become rather abrupt. Your organization's conduct at Wikipedia, aside from engaging in self-promotion (specifically prohibited), leaves much to be desired. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're speaking out of anger. I've already told you that I created the page. What was done on your page has nothing to do with me or the original topic of why you are wanting the page deleted and why you have not given any of the other convention pages this same notification. I'm truly confused why you are breaking WP's own rule about drama and harassment. It is wholly unfair and wrong to try and tear down the page because someone else is talking to you on your page in a tone you do not like. At this point, it would be unfair of you to continue to judge about this page. You are obviously not neutral in this. Hopefully, you will take a moment, step back, and realize that you shouldn't be penalizing others for one person's actions. I was messaged to create the site after I listed MystiCon on the convention page. I used the exact format that WP had set up for the other conventions. Am I going to have to go through this every time I add a Virginia-based convention? Because I have a number of others to work on that are also in VA (which is the area I'm interested in.) Please advise but if you're going to be negative or angry about it, I'd rather hear from Draveky and the other gent that was instructing me on how to proceed when I was editing on the American scifi convention page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikefoley (talk • contribs) 01:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Smikefoley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Apparently your interest in science fiction extends to a perceived ability to establish someone else's emotions from miles away. Unfortunately, your proficiency in this skill appears to be lacking, and somewhat clouded by your own close connection to the subject at hand. Please do not assign erroneous emotions to me or anyone else, unless you are in their presence or talking to them by phone or similar. As for whether you will have to go through this every time you do a new article about another Virginia-based sci-fi convention — uh, yes. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please maintain WP's own path. Instead of fighting, why not help, as Dravecky has suggested and done, by improving the page. I'm not going to respond to any more of your attempted prods to add me to your row with the other person. The page meets criteria per WPs guidelines. As has already been pointed out, the subject is covered in-depth in multiple reliable third-party sources and crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. There is no advertising words in the body of WP (best convention ever, beats all others and so forth). There is only history of where its name came from, how it came to be, past happening, future happening, references with those 3rd party resources, and the link to the official site. The same format found on ALL other pages in this same venue. Thank you and good day. coffee is the real drink of the gods! (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about any 'competition' since I've never been to either event, live a thousand miles away from them, and don't (to the best of my knowledge) know any of the people involved. I'm neither buying nor selling, just laying out facts and policy. - Dravecky (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've seen competing interests in a situation try to battle out on WP before; thankfully, this is not one of those times. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Carl Kesner. I am the advertising and promotions director for MystiCon. I dispute Realkyhick's assertion that we are a "non-notable" convention and our WikiPedia page should be deleted. Attendance for our 2011 convention was in excess of 400 people and we expect that number to grow larger in 2012 as Sherrilyn Kenyon, a NY Times best-selling author, will be our 2012 Author Guest of Honor. Our convention was promoted and reviewed by several media outlets and blogs, including The Roanoke Times. Many other science-fiction conventions of the same or lesser size maintain a WikiPedia page and I do not understand why MystiCon is being arbitrarily singled out by Realkyhick for page deletion. If WikiPedia adopted Realkyhick's criteria for WikiPedia page inclusion, then the majority of pages maintained on WikiPedia by other science fiction conventions would need to be deleted by WikiPedia editors. If the editors of WikiPedia or Realkyhick would like to contact MystiCon for more information about our convention, then feel free to visit our website at www.mysticon-va.com and click on the CONTACT link on our home page. Thank you. --Cekesner2 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Cekesner2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please take note that this editor threatened me with administrative action on my talk page, in violation of several Wikipedia policies. Furthermore, he had admitted that this article is for promotional purposes, violating WP:SPAM. This article now qualifies for speedy deletion, and Cekesner2 should probably be blocked, at least temporarily. (By the way, if you find any other articles about similarly-sized conventions with a similar lack of notability, please nominate for deletion or bring them to my attention. I suspect WP has quite a few of these.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not call that a threat, Realkyhick. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anyone who can blatantly claim "we have every right to maintain a presence on WikiPedia" needs to learn a few facts. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RHaworth: Since I am relatively new to WikiPedia and your message above was non-specific, please post a link or links to those "few facts I need to learn". Thank you. --Cekesner2 (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Cekesner2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Try our COI and ownership guidelines for starters. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - To put it succinctly: people do not "maintain a presence on Wikipedia". Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, it is essentially an encyclopedia of knowledge. Whether or not an article remains should be a neutral evaluation of the intrinsic worth of the article, which is usually expressed as notability. There is no inherent right to be included in the encyclopedia, only things which clear a certain bar of worthiness are included. Tbannist (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let me point out again that the person from the convention is not the one that created the page. He or she looked to have stepped in after another very... overzealous editor started picketing to have the page deleted. As I mentioned to her before, if it weren't for the fact that the other convention had held a meeting this year to dissolve its corporation, I would have made a page for them, but a much nicer editor pointed out that one page didn't pend on the other in terms of needing an existence. Also, I don't see the oz editor deleting any other convention pages on Wiki, which makes me uneasy as to their true reason for insisting on the deletion of the Mysticon page. I believe that the official person was referring to the following:

People of all ages, cultures and backgrounds can add or edit article prose, references, images and other media here. What is contributed is more important than the expertise or qualifications of the contributor. What will remain depends upon whether it fits within Wikipedia's policies, including being verifiable against a published reliable source, so excluding editors' opinions and beliefs and unreviewed research, and is free of copyright restrictions and contentious material about living people.
Why is this happening on WP of all places? I thought we were supposed to help make WP larger and invite people to create pages, not give the clubhouse/not invited impression.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikefoley (talk • contribs) 01:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Smikefoley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Because, as I have patiently pointed out, the article violates Wikipedia policy against promotion, and also the event does not meet WP standards for notability. As for these other similar events which you feel might need attention: If you will kindly specify which articles you are talking about, we will gladly take a look at them and consider whether they should remain. I wouldn't be surprised to find that others should been deleted, but bear in mind that Wikipedia is a huge undertaking, and unsuitable articles sometimes slip through the cracks. Again, there is nothing personal against the event or you; it is merely an attempt to enforce longstanding Wikipedia policy over an article which is clearly unsuitable, but whose supporters are very, very persistent. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge While the individual convention may indeed meet the threshold for notability, do we really need an article for each such convention? Absent such a convention being a household name, wouldn't we be better off covering them in some sort of a list article? Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to Jclemens - although that is a good idea in theory, after looking at all of the conventions listed on WP, it would be very taxing to try to merge all of those conventions on to one page and the odds are WP will lose out on a lot of good information. It would be a nightmare to uphold and things will be passed over because of the large amount of information on that one merged page. Much like those long novels that are like the energizer bunny and people lose interest and go to other sites/sources to get their information so they don't have to go through so much.

Delete. A publication being notable doesn't make it a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability. Other coverage is overly local or otherwise fails to establish notability. ^Bongo_matic 05:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply File 770 is a six-time Hugo Award winning publication and a well-regarded reliable source of news for more than 30 years. The Roanoke Times is a daily newspaper serving southwestern Virginia since the 1880s. I hesitate to speculate what "overly local" might mean but it's nothing based in policy as regards the reliability of these third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have been a guest at many conventions all over the United States, Europe, and Australia. I was also a guest at this year's Mysticon and found it to be a well-run effort. The people on the committee were upbeat and very enthusiastic. It looked to me that the fans were having a good time. Now, I agree that Mysticon is a small convention, not necessarily worthy of the same attention that Comic-Con or WorldCon might warrant, but there's a much larger principle at stake here. Wikipedia is supposed to be an information resource. Because I attend a lot of conventions, sometimes just as an attendee, sometimes as an invited guest, I appreciate having access to information. When I'm invited to an event, I want to know something about its history and what I can expect if I attend. I know that other professionals in the science fiction community also value having convention information available online. I would like to see more information about science fiction related events on Wikipedia, not less. -- David Gerrold (author) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.63.108 (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — 72.254.63.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

delete Sadly Not notable, no reliable third-party in-depth coverage. Perhaps that may change sometime, but as it stands I can't see it meeting notability. Most of the arguments in favor of keeping have been I like it, it's useful and other arguments of that nature. I would request and suggest participants who are new to wikipedia please look at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, it will help you plead your case far more effectively. HominidMachinae (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Actually, my 'keep' !vote is firmly policy-based and the subject is the focus of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. This discussion does seem to have devolved rather badly but you mischaracterize both several of the points in favor of keeping the article and the sourcing for this article. - Dravecky (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, admittedly created for promotional purposes. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Actually, it's not for promotional purposes. It is the same exact format used by not only other conventions by giving history, current and links to outside sources as was done on the MystiCon page, it matches the formats for actors, actresses, wrestlers, singers, bands and other avenues that, if this page is deleted, should be deleted as well, since the reasoning you've given is that it is promotional.coffee is the real drink of the gods! (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- There is a minority of Wikipedia editors who go around nominating articles for deletion and eviscerating verifiable, neutral information that other people went to great effort to collect. A great deal of useful information has been removed from Wikipedia by such people, and it's the main reason I stopped being an active editor a few years ago. This is yet another example of that. I do not pretend to know what motivates this crusade against sharing knowledge, but let's do what we can to discourage it. It's not good for Wikipedia, it's not good for the people who use Wikipedia, and it's not good for this article. This article should be kept, and expanded, with neutrally presented, verifiable information. This is what Wikipedia is for. -- 71.63.116.127 (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)— 71.63.116.127 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Also, I observe that both Cekesner2 and Realkyhick have an emotional connection to this specific article. It might be worthwhile to exclude their comments when evaluating this discussion, as they add more heat than light to the issue. -- 71.63.116.127 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding any editor's comments from a deletion discussion is against Wikipedia policy, barring blatant violations of other policies. Who should be excluded and who should not is not your call. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean that your comments should be deleted. I meant that your comments should be ignored by people trying to get a clear picture of the facts of the situation. And you have worked pretty hard to strengthen that opinion. -- 71.63.116.127 (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have every confidence that the admin who decides this case will look at the comments, and also the histories (or lack thereof) of those who have commented, and take all of that into consideration when making his or her decision. And I'm pretty sure that my comments will not be simply disregarded, despite your efforts. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding me why I stopped being an active Wikipedia editor back in 2006. -- 71.63.116.127 (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Having been a long time user of Wikipedia, I found this page while searching for Virginia events. When I saw it was in danger of being deleted, I had to create an account to voice my concern. One of the things that makes WP great is the vast exchange of knowledge. I did see that this particular event is more like a stub page, but that is only because I think the event is new. I googled the convention name, and saw that it was cited by several 3rd parties, including newspapers & web blogs. I am concerned that by the deletion of this file, and others similar to it, WP is unintentionally (or perhaps intentionally??) withholding information. While it is useful and good that information on the site is verifiable, it is also useful and good that even small articles, if verifiable should be left accessible to users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MistressOftheAbyss (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Stricken as sockpuppet per [26]. ^Bongo_matic 06:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This "long time user of Wikipedia" created his WP user name mere minutes before posting this, and this has been his or her only edit so far. - Realkyhick
- Really, Realkyhick? You're assuming bad faith here? You shouldn't do that. Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith a great policy that protects you, too. Otherwise someone might argue that this nomination and your frantic and confrontational arguments are rooted a personal vendetta or something. But I'm certain you have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. RBalder (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk to me) 17:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- This complaint on Realkyhick's part is outright silly, as the user *specifically informs us* that the account was newly-created for the sole purpose of posting their comment. Tynam (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only pointing out his status, especially in light of the fact that there have been attempts outside of Wikipedia to come here and vote to keep. Also pointing out the possible contradiction between being a "long time user" and just now signing on for an account. You will also note that Wikipedia takes note that some people might be recruited for such efforts, and provides the ((spa)) (single-purpose account) template for indicating those to the admin who eventually decides the case. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as we see now, my suspicios were confirmed. This aim't my first trip to the AfD Rodeo, boys and girls. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small convention (400 is a big cocktail party, but a small convention) with little relevant coverage. Article is a bit promotional but that in itself is not a reason for deletion; its lack of notability is. 199.80.13.96 (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 400 people is average for a science fiction convention, and attendance is not a criterion for notability. Avt tor (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Deleting this article would weaken List_of_science_fiction_conventions, which functions best as a live, encyclopedic resource if it contains a complete list of active conventions in this field. That list exemplifies the power of Wikipedia to aggregate relevant information on a specific topic, in a way that no other source can match. The threshold for notability of a convention should therefore be something like "verifiable through neutral sources that the convention is active and has guests in the science fiction and science fields who meet general notability requirements." RBalder (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)— RBalder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete -- The creators of that article are launching a facebook campaign to get people to come over here and respond on their behalf. I, personally, don't care one way or the other whether they have a wiki but this is blatantly going against WP's TOS. http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/mysticon.va?sk=wall . Not only that the Roanoke Times articles should be null since the writer of the article considers himself a "friend" of the convention and has obvious ties to it due to his coworker being a guest. I'm sure the other convention that the Mysticon article's creator is speaking of and wishes to create an article of: Firstly, wouldn't appreciate such an article becuase that person has very little knowledge of the actual facts surrounding the convention and the fact that that person is obviously slanted against said convention. Secondly, realizes that the convention is probably not notable enough to warrant having it's own wiki page. So, based on WP's TOS neither convention would warrant a page and this page should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewasuremono (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Thewasuremono[reply]

Keep -- Active conventions with hundreds or thousands of attendees are certainly notable. -- Benjamin Geiger (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By what Wikipedia standard? BTW, this convention had 400 attendees, not "thousands." If it were thousands, I would tend to favor inclusion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the standard meaning of "notable": people are talking about it. Namegduf Live (below) puts it much more eloquently than I can. -- Benjamin Geiger (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "standard meaning" of notability and Wikipedia's definition of it are not one and the same. Please review the notability guidelines. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the article meets both definitions. Besides, the onus is on you, since you seem so hellbent on getting the article deleted. -- Benjamin Geiger (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article covers an event with sufficient attendance to be notable; it does not take a large convention to be notable when a small convention constitutes hundreds of people. It also has sufficient references to be properly referenced, and both long-established regional newspapers and known publications are reliable enough for such. That is all that is required. Examining the arguments for deletion, I find them weak and based on either unbacked assertions that either of the above two are not true, assertions this is not notable on the grounds that things which are not household names are not notable (which likely excludes about 90% of Wikipedia) and complaints about specific users which have no relevance to this discussion. Namegduf Live (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Namegduf Live (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I should clarify; I am not asserting that attendance determines notability, but that claims that the limited amount thereof suggested a lack of it were flawed. Notability is established by the general notability guideline, which is met. Namegduf Live (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Notable enough for me. Unless Wikipedia's running out of pages, and I haven't heard about it. 94.66.35.15 Aris Katsaris (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — 94.66.35.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And this meets Wikipedia's notability standards in what way? Please cite specific Wikipedia notability guidelines. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what way do you feel it doesn't meet them? It seems to me it meets all the notablity guidelines I see. The only thing it doesn't meet is your own vague feeling about whether it is notable or not -- or your arbitrary ideas how many attendees are required to make something "notable". But the explicit guidelines themselves are passed. In another comment you say you would favor inclusion if it was a few thousand attendees instead of a few hundreds --- how arbitrary! Thousands may be enough for you, despite wikipedia guidelines, but hundreds are enough for me. Aris Katsaris (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where have you specifically cited "specific Wikipedia notability guidelines" in your RfD? Physician, heal thyself. Impassioned rhetoric and unbudgeable obstinacy are no substitute for actually supporting your point. What you demand from others, you refuse to provide yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.247.123 (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY provides "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as a guideline, with definitions of "significant coverage" (covered as a subject rather than a mention), "reliable", "sources", and "independent of the subject" (which mostly excludes self-promotional materials) that the references meet. This favours the "not notable" claims even less than claims based on size/locality, which are specifically not valid concerns under Wikipedia policy anyway. Namegduf Live (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, there's the general notability guideline. Then there's the prohibition against promotion (spam); the original author and a colleague have already admitted they posted this article, and their intent to promote this convention is both inherent to their positions, and obvious on its face. Also their obvious attempts to gin up support for their side of this AfD from others off-site. Now, where are your Wikipedia policies supporting such statements as, "It's notable enough for me"? See also WP:VALINFO, WP:LOCALFAME, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ALLORNOTHING — shall I go on? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline is what I quoted, and what I argue is easily satisfied; certainly you would need to go into more detail as to why it is not. The prohibition against promotion is not relevant; while the desire for an article to exist may have originally been for their own benefit, the article itself does not meet any of the three types of content defined as disallowed by WP:SPAM, and the article itself cannot be said to be spam. These arguments sound good on the surface but do not hold up to scrutiny. Namegduf Live (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More particularly, like most of Realkyhick's arguments here, the argument for deletion falls into a logical fallacy. None of the above policies are ever valid reasons for deletion--all are invalid reasons for retention (or for deletion). Thus, quoting them cannot be used to support deletion (but can be used to invalidate arguments for retention -- or deletion). Joshua Kronengold (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Mneme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. -- Seems notable, interesting, and useful to me. I see no good reason for deletion. Duk (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — GheoFabulousDuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See WP:ITSUSEFUL. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- While I concur with RBalder's assessment of the situation, I've not been to MystiCon myself. However, it seems to me that both Realkyhick and Cekesner2 have let their emotions run a bit high in the discussion of this matter. As such, I would recommend that they recuse themselves from the discussion in order to let cooler heads prevail. --Special Operative MACAVITY^{Debrief me} 21:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I won't submit to this unless ordered by an admin. There is no reason to. I have done nothing but point out how the arguments of the fans of this event are wrong, and how their attempts to gin up support from outside Wikipedia is not allowed, and I have done so in a "jest the facts" manner. Contrary to what those connected with the event, who appear to be trying to induce me into an emotional reaction, I refuse to do so. As to their own emotions, I cannot speak to that, just as they (or you) cannot speak to mine without talking to me directly. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Jest the facts"? Really? You're campaigning to get this article deleted despite the fact that it's in keeping with several WP policies that you claim it violates - and this has been pointed out several times by other editors - simply because you don't think it should be here. If that's not an emotional conflict of interest, then I don't know what is. --Special Operative MACAVITY^{Debrief me} 14:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins do not order people to recuse themselves from particular discussions. 66.220.144.74 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The discussion on how many people attend the convention is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand -- "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity." The article needs more and better sources, and more independent sources, but the evidence points towards notability by the only thing that matters (regarding notability) -- multiple reliable sources. Joshua Kronengold (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge -- A "rant" offsite (http://www.erfworld.com/2011/04/a-little-rage-rant-to-break-up-my-afternoon/) brought this project page to my attention. After looking around, I find that this page was probably created so that MystiCon could be listed in List_of_science_fiction_conventions (check the edit history). If that table had listed convention notability requirements for inclusion, this argument could've probably been avoided: this is a fundamental flaw in WP's hierarchical structure that needs to be addressed, preferably by experienced editors. As it is, I suggest that interested editors save what progress has been made on this page, so that when WP is ready and able for this information to be included in an article (and, perhaps, when MystiCon is more notable), it won't have been lost. 76.200.133.130 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — 76.200.133.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep and cleanup -- First, full disclosure: I have previously never heard of MystiCon, but was directed here from another website. Furthermore, it is obvious from my contribution history that I have not made any non-anonymous contribution since 2008. Now, that said, I am not here to meatpuppet; the votes and comments on this page, both keep and delete, have shown flagrant disregard for Wikipedia policy. The MystiCon page is currently in violation of no WP policy. Furthermore, the article sources prove compliance with the notability guidelines. However, the article should receive cleanup and policy-abiding expansion to stem off future AfDing. Furthermore, neither the various claims that the size of the convention make it non-notable (I know of no policy or guideline claiming any such thing, but WP:N certainly cares not for size) or that the locality of the sources make it non-notable (again, neither WP:V nor WP:N care about locality, plus the File 770 source meets the requirements for a source both for WP:V and WP:N) nor the various assumptions of bad faith have any place here whatsoever. -- Masterzora (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Article appears to satisfy WP:V and WP:NPOV . Regardless of the intent of the creators, an article in compliance with Wikipedia policy should not be deleted. --Goobergunch|? 22:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. After sleeping on it, what bugs me the most about this article is that I doubt that it's possible to expand it much beyond its current state. While being short is not a reason to delete, I'd support merging and redirecting it should an appropriate parent article exist. (List of science fiction conventions, the most apparent candidate, isn't currently structured in a way to make that feasible.) --Goobergunch|? 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article obeys WP:N. It has signifigant, reliable, and independent sources. Its language is not sales oriented, so it's not spam. Ytaker (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Ytaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Meets WP:N as interpreted through WP:LOCAL. Local newspaper plus File 770 (a notable sci-fi publication) seem sufficient for sources. Article is not written as an advertisement. Comments made by Cekesner2 are irrelevant to determining this article's status; he did not create the article, and only contributed one extremely minor edit to it. Any problems with the article should be corrected by editing and expanding, not by deleting the article. -- Stephen Gilbert (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears, through his comments on my talk page and elsewhere, that he directed the original author to create the article. That is a conflict of interest, at the very least. The difference between an advertising director for an event creating an article about that event, and telling someone else to do so on the event's behalf, are trivial at best. Why else would the advertising director tell someone to create the article except to promote the event? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not tracking the comments on personal talk pages, and I'm not going to speculate on anyone's motives. I'm basing my judgment on the article itself. -- Stephen Gilbert (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit hazy on this part of Wikipedia policy, but I don't think the original author or even sole editor having a conflict of interest is a valid reason to delete an article, merely a reason to give it a look for other concerns. Speculation as to whether someone who asked them to create it did so for purposes of promotion has little relevance to anything; as I've pointed out before, WP:SPAM is concerned with whether the article is written as an advertisement (and suggests improvement, not deletion, if it is), not whether an author might have the benefit of the subject of the article in mind at the time of writing. Namegduf Live (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A person's affiliation with a group is insufficient to establish motive for promotion of that group, even if they are the advertising director. Personal disclosure of a conflict of interest is not a basis for being attacked, as per WP:COI. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? Invite Cekesner2 to review WP:COI and WP:LUC. Anyway, at this point, I'd suggest moving MystiCon to the WP:AI. WP:AI criteria: 1. It is not excluded. 2. It is in the deletion process. 3. It may be more clearly notable given effort. 4. Smikefoley has indicated a desire to work on this, among other Virginian sci-fi conventions. 5. The subject (local sci-fi conventions) is important to a non-niche group, and it takes time to develop a paradigm for the inclusion of local convention information within Wikipedia, without resulting in WikiBloat. 76.200.133.130 (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:N, even through WP:LOCAL. The article is little more than a directory entry on a convention, and WP is not a directory WP:NOTDIR. Furthermore, all the sources referenced treat this as a localized event, rather than a long-running con of significant enough import to gain an article. When considering sources, remember WP:NEWS - news coverage should be in-depth and lengthy articles, ESPECIALLY when using news sources as support for verifiability. WP should only cover recurring events, like conventions, if it is well-established, with significant attendance, and of wide note OR if the events that took place at one instance of the recurring event were of major note. Nutarama (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also note that the supporters of this rag tag convention of a few hardcore comic nerds seem to be drumming up support on message boards and websites. I'm not a cynical man, but I think alot more reasoning needs to be articulated more clearly by the keep side. JJJ999 (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree with these folks, please refrain from name-calling. It's just as bad when it comes from one side as the other. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the three newspaper articles pushed me over the edge. It was covered by a news outlet of sorts that is an RS. We can't pick and choose when we count newspapers as sources. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 02:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe Realkyhick was not out of line to recommend deletion. The notability is unclear, for the following reasons: First, the article was written by someone who had a direct interest in the topic and so his impartiality can be questioned. Second, the secondary sources consist of minor local newspapers, plus one source which is of interest only to science fiction fans.

I disagree, but my disagreement comes from my own beliefs. Realkyhick was not wrong to state the opinion that this article is not notable and should be deleted. The evidence is not definitive one way or the other.

If the article does get deleted, I think that after a decent interval it should be rewritten by someone who has no direct connection to the Mysticon organization, and preferably with more sources. Complete a first draft offline and then enter the whole thing at once to avoid the problem the original writer had, with the deletion process interfering with his completion of the article.

Jethomas5 (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — Jethomas5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment To the best of my understanding, the person writing the WP article does not need to be impartial, only write in an unbiased manner, which they appear to have done; only the SOURCES are required to be written by unbiased/unconnected individuals (WP:SPIP) which they were. That being said, I am unsure of the validity of the sources, being new to this whole editing thing (as someone might bother looking up and pointing out, new account, first comment). I would be curious in hearing the perspective of a more experienced editor on the fact that the coverage appears, to me, to have been largely of the nature of "routine news coverage" and thus, non-notable under (WP:ROUTINE) Additionally, of the 7 sources cited, Source 1 is an announcement,Source 4 is referenced but completely unused, Source 5 is a blog, and Sources 6 and 7 are biased. Only sources 2 and 3 appear to be legitimate, WP-notability plausible references, and even their notability is debatable. Additionally, as this convention is only about a month old, this page does appear somewhat... premature, to me. That being said, if the sources (namely, 2 and 3) are deemed sufficient by more experienced editors than I, I believe this page should be kept. It isn't an advertisement, its objective, and it increases the total knowledge contained in Wikipedia. Rainet (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apparently Facebook is the new 4chan. LOL. 198.151.130.69 (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt for 12 months: The topic is a non-notable convention, nothing distinguishes it from any other convention, its not a large covention nor a convention that anything notable happened at. It is purely created for promotional purposes by someone involved with the oranisation of the convention (COI) and the canvassing by Mysticon on thier facebook page to skew consensus is unacceptable as is the sockpuppeting that has occured on this AFD. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Canvassing aside, there seems to be enough newspaper coverage from the Roanoke Times that I just can't justify voting to delete here. Kansan (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most coverage by the Roanoke Times has focussed on two conventions collectivly and the legal battle between them and not specifically this one making it no more notable than no coverage at all. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple cited article where MystiCon is the sole or primary focus, enough to meet the WP:GNG. Even so, coverage of two things in one article does not in some unexplained way cancel out that coverage. - Dravecky (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly don't understand how that would suddenly make it "no more notable than no coverage at all". Sourcability is sourcability, regardless of what else may be in the rest of the article. Is there a guideline you could point me to to explain this conclusion? Kansan (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I understand the WP:GEOSCOPE argument, but the mention of people coming in from out of state suggests this may be more than merely a local convention. There is also the File 770 source Dravecky mentions below, but that may or may not be as reliable of a source. Kansan (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many commentators here have focused on the coverage in the Roanoke Times. However, it is local coverage of the sort that doesn't on its own demonstrate notability (see WP:GEOSCOPE and generally discussions and outcomes relating to local-only coverage). ^Bongo_matic 05:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage in File 770 is international, not local, allaying a least in part those concerns. - Dravecky (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - File 770 reports on a LARGE number of clubs, conventions, fannish projects, fans, fanzines and sf awards wether they are notable within the SF community or not. So inclusion in File 770 isnt really noteworthy nor is a local newspaper. And everyone is yet to answer what is actually notable about this convention? why is it important unlike the rest? What is its claim to fame? Newspaper articles basically stating there was a convention and people attended it for once is not really establishing notability. The references establish that its a real convention and with the canvassing that has occured it is obvious, but beyond this they do nothing unless we are suddenly going to include every convention that appears in a newspaper that most people probably wipe thier arse with (like most local papers). All I'm seeing here is canvassing and the usual inclusionist (wikipedia is a directory...not.) shitter arguements that appear on most AFDs. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has too many problems, and at this time no prospect of expansion whatsoever. It starts by describing an "annual" convention - well, no, it's not annual, it was held once. There are plans to hold a second one, but en:wiki is not the place to discuss hopes and dreams. It mentions a split from another group in one-sided terms, perhaps naturally enough since it was authored by a party associated with one side of a lawsuit. It describes a single event, and promotes an upcoming planned event. And beyond that, there really appears to be nothing at all to add. It is a directory entry. As to the sources, I do not see significant coverage at all. The Roanoke Times is a local paper, it will cover every potato-eating contest and clambake it can - as it should. But that is not sufficient for our purposes. The File770 mention is more independent - but that is actually talking about the lawsuit, which would no doubt be notable for an SF publication, since (hopefully) they don't happen that often. This all seems designed more to get the word out about a new event rather than to provide sober coverage of a long-running series of events. While I respect the passion of the organizers and attendees, too many guidelines are not being met here and I see no prospect of rectification anytime soon. Two or three years from now, maybe, but currently this article should not be retained. Franamax (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't particularly care about this article specifically, nor am I inclined to create an account just to discuss the matter, but if Wikipedia is really going to be an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it needs to contain information on minor subjects like this. What Wikipedia is not, however, is a sandbox for a bunch of people who need a better hobby to go on a power trip and delete articles and information just because it doesn't meet their standards of relevance. The fact that so many of Wikipedia's editors are the kind of losers that spend hours refreshing the recent changes page just so they can swoop down on anything that displeases them and undo someone else's work for what are basically petty reasons is the reason that real experts are so loathe to touch Wikipedia. tl;dr some of you people need to get a life and stop messing with everyone else's shit. 74.127.122.102 (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — 74.127.122.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- "signed, some guy who was directed to come here from Erfworld/facebook as a meatpuppet. Is that you Rob? I think you might want to look into what wikipedia is not... since this is hardly the forum to discuss what you would personally like wikipedia to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.76.208 (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't directed to come here by anyone. I posted because this is ridiculous and has to stop.74.127.122.102 (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now/Redo article and try again I'm not going to take the time to create an account, but I want to add something to the discussion. I, too, stumbled upon this by the Erfworld thing and have personally experienced an editor who goes out of his way to delete an article on Wikipedia instead of providing help as to what was wrong with the article only to insist in every comment that the article MUST be deleted (which is why I read this in the first place). Going through List_of_science_fiction_conventions, there are some articles linked off of there that are clearly in worse shape than this current article. Furthermore, List_of_science_fiction_conventions can be considered direct violation of WP:NOTDIR, therefore, should be removed because it, too, can be considered a promotional type of page, based on locations given and dates of the next occurrence. However, that being said, this article has its own merit, but needs to be cleaned up, significantly, before it should be considered WP viable. I believe future events should not be addressed past when the next convention will occur and where, as any key note speakers, groups, etc could be considered "promotional material". The external link should be enough to provide information to those who are interested. Past events are ok, and should deal with key points, speakers, notable events, etc that occurred during the convention. More history in the convention, even the scandalous circumstances in its founding, should be noted as well (which would provide it more referenceable information). See Ad_Astra_(convention), Finncon, and MarsCon_(Bloomington,_Minnesota) for more of what this article should be.

Also, if references are such a problem, then MarsCon_(Bloomington,_Minnesota) needs to be deleted. There are no references of any kind on the page to speak, nor are there any on MarsCon_(Williamsburg,_Virginia), nor on several more of the conventions linked from the list. The argument for deletion here seems to be less about the fact that this event isn't referenceable, but more about the continuity of the event, as it has only seen one gathering to date. It is not a "significant" event, therefore, loses its ability to be referenced on Wikipedia. I don't agree with that at all.

Therefore, just clean up the page with the sandbox and previews, add a little more information. Fight for this to be kept if you so desire, but if it is deleted, present a much more detailed article in the future, perhaps after the second successful convention. -66.209.247.246 (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per Franamax. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a regional newspaper reporting on the event is more than enough to prove that it is notable for a community. That multiple smaller celebrities participated in the conference recently, further supports that this is more than an insignificant conference, and therefore non-notable,Sadads (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as has been pointed out repeatedly, the involvement of one or more COI editors doesn't justify a deletion. This is a regional convention with sufficient coverage in the mainstream and SF media to qualify under our standards, although additional references are needed. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure that? Not the COI authorship (though I'll likely be removing some of the wording that skirts around the lawsuit issue tomorrow). But how do you construe "sufficient" coverage? It was a single event, covered by a local newspaper. The "SF media" coverage is a single item, noting that one con was split into two after a legal filing. If all you need is a local paper mention and a statement of claim, I can do 12 of those tomorrow. The SF media source does not discuss the actual convention in any depth at all, it just notes the split. I would think there definitely needs to be more sources to show significant independent coverage. Franamax (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The File 770 coverage can hardly be said to be "in depth", or, to be honest, abut MystiCon itself. Just as people involved in notable events are not inheriting notable, neither are organizations that are involved in notable lawsuits (and it would be a ridiculous stretch to infer notability of the lawsuit from its coverage in File 770). ^Bongo_matic 13:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mike, I was hoping this discussion would hear from you. From your history, I understand that you've seen this type of argument before, and you're well-versed in the consensual standards for convention-related articles, especially regarding relative notability and convention coverage. Perhaps your expert knowledge can assist us in seeing how the MystiCon article fits into the big picture of science-fiction conventions on Wikipedia, especially with regard to where the notability line is drawn? 76.200.133.130 (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — 76.200.133.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Frankly, MystiCon is one of the weakest "keep" cases of the 14-way AfD "get the fans" deletefest, and if it were not for the press coverage of the feud, I could see a deletion argument going the other way. I am frankly much more concerned by the rather "pointy" nominations of such old established conventions as Readercon and Marcon (the latter the subject of a prize-winning filk song); and of course by the cultural bias against fans and fandom that some people's sneering comments display (not, however, Reallyhick, who went out of his way to criticize such snideness). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not aware of any upper limit Wikipedia is constrained by for the number of pages it contains. If this page is allowed to remain it will be given a chance to grow and become a more comprehensive article. Its content does not come across as an advertisement. I see no practical reason to delete it, other than to enforce a policy that is being applied too broadly and blindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.107.203 (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it happens more than once, it might establish notability, but I don't see it yet from the sourcing given. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't demonstrate enough notability to qualify itself for inclusion. With only 1 year of performance, local paper coverage (with the exception of File 770 and conventionfansblog) there isn't enough independent reliable sourcing. The File 770 is more about the "name" of the convetntion/corporation organizing. Conventionfansblog is a fan blog and therefore should be dismissed based on dubious reliability. Not opposed to re-creation once notability and reliable sourcing issues are resolved. Until then delete with a future option of salting if external coordination does not stop. Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - By nature Sci-Fi conventions aren't very notable in general society. We come here to find out about things we wouldn't have heard about. If other conventions are listed, and this one is active, then it's a keeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiag (talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, please read WP:WAX and similar sections of that page. And I think the larger, more-established science fiction conventions — especially those with a national or near-national scope and coverage — are notable by anyone's definition, including Wikipedia's. I'm just saying this particular small con which has been held just once is not notable (at least not yet), and that editors connected to the con posted the article in an effort to promote it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable non-local/routine coverage, no indication of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Often WikiPedia serves as a secondary source and the very fact of this convention's smallness would be useful information which might not necessarily be advertised by the event's promoters. (Please forgive new editor, I admit to following the page due to aforementioned notoriety, but as a Wiki user I have relied on precisely this information about conventions in south central Texas, information which allowed me to make an informed decision. As a Wiki editor I may be still figuring out where my passions lie, but I know Science Fiction conventions is one.) HanniGarbs (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — HanniGarbs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. We normally aren't this crazy. But be advised that Wikipedia is not a directory — see this page. I haven't researched this personally, but I'm pretty sure a Google search would turn up a list of science fiction conventions in several places. If not, I would probably do well to start a site and sell ads :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I came to this by a link from Erfworld, read all the discussion, and glanced at the page and history. It's been a few days, more than enough time for an editor to establish just what information was covered by those cited notability sources beyond "people came here on day X and might come back on day Y". The article creator needs to stop throwing a temper tantrum and start working on the article if it can be saved by more contentHarmsc12 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — Harmsc12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep & fix up: Hi there! I've been using Wikipedia as a information resource for several years now, and frankly, this article (and the massive 'debate' it has spawned,) as well as several articles in the same vein, has driven me to create an account here. having just read the aforementioned arguments (and all cited rules pages) as well as the article itself, I cannot see this article warranting deletion. while it certainly needs more information, the general attitude that has been displayed by a number of people on both side has been childish and unacceptable, more like what one might expect of the more serious *chans. I suggest that the article be unmarked, and the effort of the editors focused on obtaining more information. If no additional information can be located, than we may consider setting up a series of 'minor conventions in _______' pages, containing similar amounts of information for multiple conventions, or merging with a larger article on similar subjects. the wanton deletion of article stubs simply because no-one has taken time to expand them into full-sized articles is not what Wikipedia is about, that being, the free and (mostly) unbiased exchange of factual information. while I haven't time right now, I intend to put ye olde google search to the test. peace and harmony~ Mechanis (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — Mechanis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment "may consider setting up a series of 'minor conventions in _______' pages" This works, too, and actually sounds like a good compromise between factions. This implementation would be much like having a page describing all characters in a work of fiction even though some of those characters have and warrant pages of their own. It feels right, and if this suggestion gains consideration, it has my support. 98.168.225.229 (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, I forgot to log in before leaving that comment. Harmsc12 (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm, that might just work. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to answer reallykyhick's challenge to find other SF convention pages that have weak references, because I thought he'd just mark all of them for deletion too. But I looked at List_of_science_fiction_conventions and picked the first ten conventions listed, and found that two of them are marked for deletion and none of the other eight have significant references. They reference their own websites, and sometimes local newspapers, and fandom blogs, and that's about it. (In one case the local newspapers were Austin and Dallas, but nobody outside Texas cares about those, right?) And that one was also once the official sponsor of the World Horror Convention, but is that really notable? Only to people who care about horror conventions.

Out of the first twenty, I found three that might be considered to have notable sources. Capclave is discussed in two printed books about fandom in the 1940s and 1950s. Botcon has many locations, including europe and Japan, and is involved with the Hasbro Hall of Fame. And Can-Con was once associated with the Ottawa Hi-Tech Buyer's Group. The other 17 mostly reference themselves, and their friends, and non-notable local newspapers.

If a lack of significant references is enough to get a SF convention page deleted, probably most of the list will need to be updated or face deletion. Jethomas5 (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is my point. Alas, another editor decided to go through the list as well, and put at least a couple of cons up for AfD. (I voted on both — one keep, one weak-ish keep.) But I suspect that many cons listed in the list-of article are like this, and some sort of threshold policy needs to be established. My rule of thumb: If a meeting of a bunch of, say, Barbershop Harmony Society singers (I use them as an example only because I'm familiar with them — I was a member years ago) that attracts some attention from the local newspaper or TV station, and brings 600 or so folks down to the local high school or Marriott every year is not notable by Wikipedia standards (and I don't), then why should a con exhibiting similar characteristics be considered notable? In other words, are we allowing a bias toward a certain group of people or events? I don't have any particular like or dislike toward science fiction, but I also know that many people feel very passionately about it, and I suspect that many like that are also active on Wikipedia. I suspect this also exists in other genres of fandom. It's something we need to get a handle on. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am increasingly dubious about this whole concept.

"notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large"

A few months ago I looked for a science fiction convention in Virginia. Wikipedia was not useful. Around the same time I looked up some arcane mathematical topics and found them. Also some computer algorithms. I expect the number of people interested in those latter topics is far smaller than those interested in SF. But if we apply this criterion evenly we will probably eliminate 98% of the existing SF-related topics from Wikipedia, because most of them are of interest only to people who are interested in SF and not to the world at large. Similarly with the GLBT info -- we shouldn't censor it just because it offends a lot of people, but even more people find it utterly boring.

Perhaps Wikipedia could split into, say, Wikipedia and WikiArcana and just move all the stuff that only small minorities care about (like mathematical details and SF and such) into the wilderness?

Jethomas5 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK KEEP So, I read through everything that has been said, and to me it comes down to a couple things. 1. Is a few hundred people considered "popular". I think it is to them, but probably not to the world as a whole. 2. What is the definition of a creditable independent source? Well, even a small newspaper is supposed to be a indifferent credible source, but we all know that local news thinks that THEIR news is the most important, even when it's not. 3. Is Realkyhick emotional about this subject or is that just how he rolls? We don't really know him so we can't say. He might just be the kind of person that is abrupt and doesn't feel there is anything wrong with that. (for the record, I'm that kind of person.) Now I know it seems like I'm making an argument for DELETE, but I'm not. It's my opinion that the website shouldn't be deleted because the argument for deletion and the argument for keeping is both pretty weak, but wouldn't we rather error on the side of caution when there is no set in stone policy and there is so much opinion being thrown around? The posts says that the decision to keep or delete is based off of content, not votes, so both sides, please, stop posting almost word for word an opinion someone else has already posted. Oh, never posted anything before, just made account, spent about 30 min reading through this, just in case anyone thinks I'm an expert, I'm not. Medros8 (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Medros8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Request and Comment: Could someone please gather the rationale behind the argument for deleting in a more easily digestible format? I can't seem to find (or at least sort out) anything concrete on it between the flared tempers and inaccurate information about "the other side" all around. For what it's worth, I can't see how this article fails notability given the list of sources it already has, but I don't think I can vote keep unless I can see what the actual argument is behind this AfD. --Tathar (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for deletion on two counts: 1) that the event was a small, local event that had only been held once, and not meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, and 2) it was created primarily to promote the event (later confirmed when the original editor admitted he had been directed to create the article by the con's publicity director); promotion of anything is prohibited at Wikipedia. The original parties involved with the article claim the con is notable enough, and that they are not trying to promote through this article. And sorry about all the back-and-forth, for as you can see, the debate has grown quite contentious at times. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but my request was how you came to the conclusion that it wasn't notable. Just saying something isn't notable is only a claim; you need to support a claim with evidence to solidify your argument. Also, the promotion argument seems absurd to me. The article doesn't seem to have anything in it that violates NPOV at all, let alone read like an advertisement. Just because someone who previously edited the article admitted doing so to promote the article's subject doesn't mean that further edits that remove the POV parts or edit them into NPOV language ultimately are meaningless. Besides, if the article meets notability policy, POV language in the article is best edited rather than the entire article being deleted. --Tathar (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines require significant coverage in reliable in-depth sources independent from the subject. Several articles in the Roanoke Times have been offered up, as has an article in File 770. Editors (including myself) who believe the article doesn't meet the requirements have argued:

Per WP:GEOSCOPE and other discussions / outcomes relating to local coverage, that the Roanoke Times coverage is of too local a nature to establish notability; and
That File 770 is not a "reliable source" for the purposes of establishing notability, and/or (and, in my case) that the coverage in that sources is not sufficiently "in-depth" to meet the guideline.

Hope that's helpful. ^Bongo_matic 07:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File 770 is a six-time Hugo Award winning news publication, international in scope, renowned for its coverage of science fiction and related topics. By all reasonable interpretations of WP:RS, it is a reliable source and coverage in File 770 can be used to help establish notability. - Dravecky (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fanzine. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOSCOPE seems to answer my questions about one of the sources, but fanzine or not, File 770 seems to be more reliable than the connotation of "fanzine" may suggest. Ultimately the notability question is this (to paraphrase): can a non-stub article be made on the subject based on multiple third-party reliable sources? --Tathar (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and Fix up

Realkyhick, Thank you for that clear explanation. I strongly disagree about the promotion angle -- it doesn't matter what the author intended, the result is not promotion. I think you should drop that one.

I mostly disagree about File 770. It is self-published but it has decent editorial control. If being self-published was enough to discredit it, isn't Wikipedia itself self-published?

I think your other points are debatable but not unreasonable. Local newspapers are not automatically discredited as sources, but they are not automatically accepted, either. File 770 did not necessarily give the sort of information about Mysticon which would establish it as notable. Whether Mysticon is actually notable enough to belong in Wikipedia at this point is also a matter of opinion.

Jethomas5 (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not acceptable as a source for articles either -- and we don't generally accept self-published sources for information on third parties. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what? File 770 is one of the three standard sources for current news and information in the science fiction world, along with Locus and Ansible. Anything appearing there must be regarded as fully sourced and fully reliable (more so than coverage in many mainstream newspapers). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. After reading the arguments so far, I think we should keep this one and try to expand the article's length. The COI argument seems to be a moot point now, and there's enough to back up File 770's credibility. Even with WP:GEOSCOPE making the local newspaper source not enough to establish notability, I think that there can be enough reliable source material to warrant an article, and there seems to be enough editors paying attention to this article now to actually do it. Though, if it's still a stub a month from now, I'll change to delete. --Tathar (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - This article is so short, that I don't see how it could even come under the suspicion of being biased or promotional.--Mirage GSM (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For those who are complaining about the material that would be "lost" by deleting this article -- I encourage you to copy the existing material to either of the two SF fandom-specific wiki's: http://fanlore.org or http://www.fanhistory.com . AFAICS, it will be welcomed there! And, luckily enough, since the text is free content, you can do so legally. This is NOT about information being lost, it's about whether that information should be here. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep: WP:NOT The Wikipedia is not paper. And no, I am not a meat-puppet. Eqdoktor (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Been drawn here by Rob Balder's rant. I can understand Realkyhick points that this article is borderline regarding WP:N but we need to keep the spirit of an inclusive encyclopedia. The article content is neutral and well written although not very informative. As long as the addition of this kind of article do not clutter more notorious ones with WP:D I'm OK with it. Slb (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, inclusive or not, there is a point where an article just needs to be deleted. Still, in cases where WP:N is borderline, it's best to keep the article and wait until later so that all options are still available at a future date, when notability can be assessed again. If you delete right away, then you take away potentially good options, and that's bad for the project as a whole. --Tathar (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think that Realkyhick can distance himself from the problem at this point. As an earlier user pointed out, he isn't making a case for deletion beyond attacking the points that other people are making to keep. That is not, in and of itself, a strong reason to delete the article. The arguments in favour of keep, and the way Realkyhick has conducted himself with regards to this AfD have swayed me to keep. Given a little work, I'm sure we could find some information to add to it. So perhaps putting down the torches and pitchforks and picking up a spade would be the correct course of action here? AFAIC, the localization of the publication is less important as it is a local event. As journalists would tell you, proximity is one of the indicators of newsworthiness.

If you've been drawn here from Rob Balder's Erfworld or Facebook, please don't add to the noise. While I'm sure your support would be appreciated, you may trample the article in your haste to save it. --Fiat Lux (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So defending myself from those who seek to impugn my motives, or pointing out the fallacies in others' reasoning (such as "Wikipedia isn't running out of space"), is a reason to keep this article? (In Glenn beck voice:) "Reaaally?" That so defies logic, I find myself at a loss as to how to respond. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not what is being said at all. The point is that if your only argument to delete is that you disagree with the keep arguments, there is no argument to delete. As a general rule for civil discussion, please refrain from making sentences of the form "So you're saying...". These summaries are almost always wrong enough to appear to be deliberately missing the point, and attacking the summary usually constitutes a strawman argument at best. I understand that that is likely not your intention, which is all the more reason to avoid it. -- 70.58.154.242 (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reasons for deletion I set forth when I nominated the article to start this whole thing. (I understand completely if it's hard to follow back that hard. I've almost lost track myself :-) ) In short, it's lack of notability and self-promotion. As for "So you're saying...", sometimes it's necessary if the person you're addressing hasn't made their point entirely clear, either by their expression or one's own percenption. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, with notability issues taken care of and the self-promotion bit being shown to be a nonissue, all that's left is your vehement disagreement with the Keeps, yet you continue to make such passionate arguments. And, while I understand the intended purpose behind the "So you're saying..." statement, you are incorrect in stating that it is necessary. A much more civil and productive solution is to request clarification, perhaps including a brief summary as you understand it, and what until clarification before actually commenting. To comment on your own supposition of their meaning is unproductive at best and actively harmful at worst. -- 70.58.154.242 (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I found this AfD from Erfworld, but if we all put our Wikipedia hats on while we're here, I don't think that's really a big deal. That said, I found something interesting while browsing through the AfD category. Since consensus seems to be shifting to Keep anyway, it might not be necessary in this case, but WP:AI seems to be a pretty good idea for articles that need a lot of work to follow policy, assuming there are people willing to volunteer the time to do it. --Tathar (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From WP:NOTABILITY:"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." File 770 appears to satisfy this requirement. It is a reliable source that is independent of the subject. A dedicated article counts as significant coverage. Therefore, MystiCon is "presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" by WP:NOTABILITY.

From WP:LOCAL: "It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article." The key word here is "attributable." I count 5 references, 4 of which are "attributable to a reliable published source" as defined in WP:A. (The 5th is "Convention Fans." I'm not sure whether that counts as a "self-published source" or a "professional self-published source" for WP:A.)

Regarding the speculation and discussion about people's motives found above: The advertising director was obviously WAY out of line when he stepped into this debate, but it doesn't appear that he created the article. Cekesner2's actions shouldn't reflect poorly on Smikefoley. On the other side, the speculation that Realkyhick is personally or emotionally opposed to MystiCon is also baseless. A few minutes of research reveals that he does this all the time for newly created articles. Please WP:AGF on both sides. 0x539 (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Convention Fans" is a blog, and cannot be used here, as it doesn't meet our standards of reliable source. I've removed that reference (which was superfluous anyway). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ckesner2 is only relevant in that it was he who directed Smikefoley to create the article. In other words, the two worked in tandem to create an article about a con in which both are involved, We know this because of what both have posted here, as well as on my talk page. In other words, there is little difference between a PR director for an event posting an article, and for that PR director to instruct someone else to do so. They are seeking to promote their event, in violation of Wikipedia policy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though this is a little tangential, I will note that it is irrelevant if the intent was to promote at time of writing (which seems still in question). The anti-promotional argument is only valid if it is an attack against what an article actually does. [If I meant to kill a person, but instead saved their life, we do not lock me up for murder.] I think it is clear that the article as it stands does not represent advertisement, and should not be judged as such. (It should be noted that I am generally a strong anti-deletionist, under the 'Wikipedia has no deadlines' policy.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.91 (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Promotion" flag that Realkyhick keeps waving, I thought a copy of that guideline might be useful: "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Even an article written about a company specifically by its marketing director solely because he wanted his company to be in Wikipedia would not qualify for deletion under this criterion if: The company was notable and the article was encyclopedic and from a NPOV. G11 specifically says that the article has to be exclusively promotional and require extensive rewriting to become encyclopedic. It doesn't say who the source of the article is or their motives in writing it, it only addresses the resulting article's quality. I posit that the "promotion" argument does not apply here. The only relevant question at this point for the deletion request is: Is the subject of the article notable? Arrataz (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are talking about the "blue" G11, which is a speedy deletion criterion, not an Articles for Discussion criterion. If it was a G11, it would have been gone long ago. I'd like to say that quite a few of the flood of newly-registered editors commenting here have made very cogent summations and justifications for their conclusions on this specific instance. I really hope that I will see some of you hanging around here and editing all the many articles we could use help with. Forget about this particular article, just come here and help us to edit the encyclopedia. Franamax (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. He actually started calling for speedy deletion and waving the "Promotion" flag. Repeatedly. Just search the text to find it numerous places. I was addressing that specific specious claim. "Before you correct me, first make sure you're right, then make sure I'm wrong." Also, I'm not "newly registered". Been around for a long time. Arrataz (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this discussion from a link protesting the pending deletion. In good faith I have read the article in question and the discussion here to the pros and cons of this action. Here is my two cents worth: I would not oppose this deletion, but not on the issues cited by Realkyhick(which I really think are overblown and without merit). This article, if you can realistically call it that, is no more than the bare bones of what it needs to be in order to be useful to anyone seeking information on the event in question. If the supporters put half as much time fleshing out the entry as they have put here rehashing the same arguments then this article would not be in danger. The comments on using self promotion as the reason for deletion being applied to hundreds of articles, they have a point. If you use that measure on this entry then in fairness you will need to put the majority of the entries on everything from Cons to authors and books in the ash pile as well.24.51.139.188 (talk)sirnomad —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Keep with no objections to a merge to some appropriate list. The event is of a decent and significant size, and the information relating to it is verifiable and reliable. The information within the article should be preserved. Ray^Talk 01:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break[edit]

weak Keep I'd been aware of the large number of convention nominations from ANI, but got here via Erfworld. Looking at the sources, I see WP:N being met and WP:GEOSCOPE not applying as this isn't clearly an WP:EVENT (Events in this context don't normally repeat for example). I don't think the World Series (for example) should be considered an event, nor should the State of the Union speech. As WP:N is met with non-trivial coverage in multiple sources (if weakly) I see no problem. Hobit (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)2[reply]

Summary for Realkyhick

I want to repeat your arguments in my own words, tell me whether I got them right? You say delete for two reasons, it's self-promotion and it isn't notable.

For self-promotion, you say the author and/or instigator of the page have admitted they intended promotion.
For non-notable, you have two parts, the spirit and the letter of the law. For the spirit you say 400 people is not enough, 4000 would be enough. Mostly from Virginia is too local.

Then for the actual rules, the article includes two sources.

You argue that neither source provides notable material. Either it is too brief or too promotional or mostly about a single past event.
But also the sources themselves are inadequate. One is a local newspaper. The other is a self-published fanzine.

So neither is a good source, and even if they were good sources they would not make it notable. Is this your position? Did I leave out something important or get something wrong? Jethomas5 (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty good summary, though not entirely correct. I have no issue with The Roanoke Times as a reliable source — especially since I'm a newspaper reporter. :-) As for File 770, the science-fiction community seems to consider it a reliable source, given that it won a Hugo Award. I'm still not convinced, so this is a point of debate. Additionally, of the three refs listed from the Times, one is a legitimate full-blown feature story, the other is a slightly-longer version of a calendar-of-events listing which also dwells on the split between the two shows, and the third appears to be a photo gallery that is (or should be) linked to one of the other two, and therefore isn't really a separate item. I can't figure out how the Times' content-management software has them linked. But as you said, even if all were good sources, the con isn't notable because of lack of longevity, geographic scope/attraction and attendance. Somewhere in this massive AfD is my rule-of-thumb about barbershop quartet conventions: is MystiCon more notable than an annual quartet convention (or model railroaders, or any other enthuiasts' genre you could name) of similar attendance and with similar press coverage? I argue that neither event would be notable. I would also add that MystiCon might later grow to be notable if it keeps going for a few years, or grows in attendance. But right now as a first-year con which has no guarantee of making it to a second year, I say it isn't notable. - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/NoticeboardRealkyhick (Talk to me) 07:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. About the self-promotion argument, many people have said that it doesn't matter what the authors intend, the article itself is not self-promotion. I haven't noticed you respond to this. Will you withdraw the self-promotion point?

I want to put aside the arguments about whether it's really notable. There's room for legitimate disagreement about that. Instead look at the actual criteria, the argument for notability by notable reference from notable sources.

I say your arguments about this are not illegitimate and there's room for disagreement. Other people can argue whether the sources say enough about Mysticon to make it notable. But it's important whether File 770 is itself a reliable source.

"...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."

File 770 is self-published. So is Ansible, though Locus is not. If we apply this standard then a great deal of fandom-related material will become unsourced.

"Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to discuss File 770 and Ansible on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ? Jethomas5 (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Within the science fiction community, these three publications are the gold standard of reliability; it is no accident that they are repeated Hugo nominees and winners. If you don't understand that, you are so out of contact with the field as to render this entire discussion futile. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mike, it's clear that these three publications are the gold standard of reliability within the science fiction community. But there appears to be no consensus among members of this discussion whether Wikipedia should accept the SF community's standard. We've argued back and forth.

"It's the SF gold standard."

"It's self-published, no good."

"It's the best the SF community has to offer."

"Just a fanzine, worthless."

Would it make sense to actually discuss the topic in the place set up to discuss that kind of thing? Then next time we'll have a place to point. On the other hand, that place has 93 archives and I didn't see how to search them all at once so I only searched the first 15. Maybe it's already been done.

Jethomas5 (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. Orange Mike and I are actually discussing that on his talk page. It should actually apply to numerous genres in fandom, while we're at it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to wonder whether it's worth bothering. A google for "David Langford" and "Ansible" together provides links to notes by people whose opinions are clearly worthless, since they write about (and in some cases write) science fiction: people like David Hartwell, Kathryn Cramer (a/k/a our own User:Pleasantville), Gardner Dozois, Michael Bishop, Jo Walton, Karl Edward Wagner, Neil Barron, Brian Stableford, Neil Gaiman, Nobel Prize winning physicist Frank Wilczek and the compilers of bumfodder like No Country for Old Men: Fresh Perspectives on Irish Literature , The Work of Ian Watson: An Annotated Bibliography & Guide, Attending Daedalus: Gene Wolfe, Artifice and the Reader and the notoriously frivolous Twentieth-Century Science-Fiction Writers. Hack zines like Nature and New Scientist clearly cannot be relied upon, if they take the word of mere science fictionists (have I mentioned that the term "sci-fi" is a pejorative to many of us?) about science fiction! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems to me that since MystiCon is a branch-off from SheVaCon, Mysticon should be a separate heading in the SheVaCon page...if it's a question of longevity. MystiCon has been around since 2010 - SheVaCon, since the early 1990s. The problem is the SheVaCon article doesn't exist. I guess their advertising director isn't as on-the-ball. :) 76.200.133.130 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no to much of that. They are both good sources. The Roanoke Times is a perfectly good source for events local to their own coverage area. File 770 won a Hugo in 1984 for best fanzine, that is an established credential. As it happens, Shawna won that year too, as editor of IAsfm. If I looked through my back issues enough, I could likely find some good cites for SF fanzines as being considered reliable back then. I think we should take off the table whe"Just a fanzine, worthless."ther or not File 770 is a reliable source, and instead discuss what is actually represented in the source. It seems to me that if you actually read through the material, what is being discussed is actually SheVaCon. That is the con that has run 20 years, and the out-of-court settlement reached by that group is what prompted the partivular mention. Mysticon occurred before SheVaCon that year, so it occurs first in the "listing" style of the cited article. But it would not evem be there if it were not for the prior notability of SheVaCon, otherwise it would have been just a line item in the "events calendar" section of File 770. And on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. (Does this link work? Franamax (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's an important point to make here. Arguments to Avoid in AfD includes Graham's hierarchy of disagreement right at the top. The hierarchy suggests an order to the different possible ways to disagree/discuss. At the top is refuting the central point explicitly, at the bottom is name calling (the hierarchy displayed uses the term ass hat as an example). Just above name calling is Ad Hominem: "attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the article." I would say that both sides have been a little guilty of that. Only two steps above that is Contradiction: "[stating] the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence", which is what much of the arguments for deletion seem to have done.

In keeping with Graham's Hierarchy, I'm going to jump straight for the second tier: Refutation.

The comments that MystiCon or coverage of it is too local fall under this fallacy "Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline requires multiple sources independent of the subject to cover the subject in order to establish notability. But this guideline does not specify the locality of the coverage."

Likewise, the size of this event does not affect its notability, as per WP:BIG which states: Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources.

The scale or lack of knowledge that individuals who are not involved with the SF/Convention community is also a little moot. WP:LOCALFAME includes the following in its explanation "some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable.

" This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions."

No one can argue whether or not MystiCon will or will not be an important event and arguments to this point fall under a very specific branch of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

Likewise, Realkyhick's comments about the employment of the author, or the actions of the MystiCon staff on WP seem to be recurrent and verging on personal attack. However, ATA has something that covers that quite nicely. It even shares a name! WP:ADHOM states: "A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself. Though the suitability of other related articles may be mentioned during the discussion, and some deletions are bundled with other articles, the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD." I apologize if this seems like a personal attack Realkyhick, but it was not intended that way.

And lest we forget the wisdom of children's cartoons from the 1950s let us all gaze upon the wonder that is WP:DUCKSEASON. This AfD seems to have gotten a little out of hand. So, let's all remember what it is here for. -- Nonesuch: Fiat Lux 13:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't be a WP:DICK about it unless you're here for the Argument Clinic ;-) Eqdoktor (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, having been noticed by independent sources. If the topic seems slight, then this is an argument for merger, not deletion. Our editing policy is to retain content in an appropriate way. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, minor science fiction conventions. Notability has been established to a meeting point, and a single section is enough to file down what can be stated as matter of fact about the event at the moment. In order to grow further sources which qualify the event are required - patitomr (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an appropriate merge target could be suggested, I'd have no objection to a merge. Perhaps the list article would do, with the table of major conventions at the top with their Wikilinks, and the minor one in a section at the bottom, with maybe a paragraph on each. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Science Fiction Conventions - as you said, listing for the wikilinks and paragraphs for the minors - patitomr (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I concur with Realkyhick that it is biased to focus on this type of event because it is of interest to a group that is closer to WP, which enables them to can work on it more intently. Also I think that a line is crossed when the ability to modify WP is treated as an entitlement, and more measure should be applied to understand that things hold different value for a public venue than for a body of knowledge. But in the end it comes down to what things really are and become, which the harmony society does well on its own. Any further comparison is that they are both organizations - patitomr (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I only used the barbershop quartet analogy because I was a member years ago, and therefore familiar with their annual (actually semi-annual) conventions which normally get about the same attendance and local press coverage. In other words, it was handy. Many other groups of enthusiasts could serve the same comparative purpose. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me)

Absolutely - patitomr (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in Roanoke Times and one other reliable source Google news search turns up straight away, although both are hidden behind a paywall. Notable people have participated at the convention, their names blue links in the article now, and that does add to a convention's notability. Dream Focus 11:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources establishes notability per the notability guidelines. If Barbershop Quartet Conventions are also covered in independent reliable sources, then they too may keep their Wikipedia entries; I do not see how the fact that I don't care about either topic means it should be deleted. Neither should the fact that someone complained in a webcomic about the deletion argue for deletion, that's just contrariness. The concern is whether this particular article meets notability requirements; it clearly does, the coverage in a regional newspaper is independent and significant, the coverage in a notable (because it received multiple notable rewards) fanzine is also independent, though I am not sure if it was significant. The existence of a controversy about its founding that elicits more coverage just makes it easier to get at the secondary sources and write a better article. Felisse (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just to clarify: Individual barbershop quarter conventions do not have Wikipedia articles, nor am I arguing they should — in fact, if someone posted an article about an individual BHS district convention, I would probably move for deletion. My apologies if I have not been clear about that, as I merely used that analogy for comparison purposes and by way of my own convenience. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough to have been covered by reliable sources. If local events are not "notable" enough to have their own Wikipedia article, shouldn't the Mardi Gras and Guelaguetza articles be marked as AfD as well? Danixdefcon5 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and the Earth article too since not a single one of those sources is from an off-world or extra-solar source. It's geocentric bias at its worst! (Tongue firmly in cheek here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (5th nomination).) - Dravecky (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sharshenka responds: I may be doing the wrong thing in responding to this comment. Please forgive me if this is in bad taste or formatted poorly. I do read the webcomic mentioned above, but I genuinely want to help this conversation by including some data that appears to be asked for, but never included in this discussion thread.

Here is the information on notability from the wiki page on the subject.
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, 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. (Both roanoke.com articles go into the events at Mysticon, and interview participants. One also gives equal time to the "rival" SheVaCon).
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. (In my opinion, a published newspaper, even if it is not national, should count a reliable since there are actual editors that are paid to make sure they don't print drivel - thus providing "editorial integrity").
"Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. (Neither the Roanoke Times or File 770 appear to be directly linked to Mysticon (I may have missed the reference to a Roanoke article having been written by a friend of Mysticon). In addition, the two Roanoke times articles were written by different authors).
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.(I didn't see any indication that either Roanoke article was based on a press release. The one that interviewed participants appears to be written by the journalist based on his own interviews.)
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.(This is clearly the biggest sticking point, in my opinion. The idea that no one has ever written an article in WikiPedia with the hopes of garnering attention for themselves/their event/their product seems naive, but that is for wiser people than I to decide.)

Another bit of information that was requested and not supplied is a list of similar cons that have not been flagged for deletion. I hope that linking to a few examples will not be thought of as attacking the authors of these pages. I only want to supply information that was requested, and hopefully contribute to a better understanding of this issue in the future. I am not trying to get these pages flagged for deletion.
Boskone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskone_%28convention%29) Only references its own website, from what I can tell.
BayCon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BayCon) Appears to be similarly local, and sites websites and livejournal entries as sources.
Balticon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balticon) Has only very short references, and also appears to be a local event.
Boskone and Balticon do have notes that they need citations, but are not flagged for deletion. BayCon has neither notes. The one thing that these pages have that Mysticon does not is history - they have all been running for far longer than Mysticon. In that light, I might suggest that the Mysticon page give a nod to SheVaCon by listing past information about that convention and saying that Mysticon grew from this older, more established con, or by stating more history about the convention that originally bore the Mysticon name.
Again, I would like to apologize if this information is not useful. It is submitted with the goal of removing some of the emotions from this discussion, and hopefully creating a more clear guideline to use for the future. Sharshenka (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)sharshenka Keep, the sources are good. (Did I dodge the drama? Did I? Did I?) --Kiz o r 07:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reasons for deletion are exaggerated. The article does not appear to be overtly promotional and it appears to be notable enough for inclusion. Tbannist (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Upon review of the article as it currently stands, I found only one statement that verged on promotional language. I have replaced it with neutral language. 0x539 (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a bit of a stub, but I can't see that it violates any guidelines. The fact the original author could possibly have had a conflict of interest should only be taken to indicate that some scrutiny was in order, but doesn't automatically invalidate the article. The article in it's current form meets notability guidelines (multiple independent published sources) and doesn't appear to be promotional in nature. It's not particularly interesting to me, but it does belong. Please note that number of attendees and locality are largely irrelevant to notibility, and that the original author's purpose in writing the article (and the subject's management defending the article in and inappropriate manner) have no bearing on the article itself. Judge the article for the article, not for the people around the article. Gatherer818 (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete (Disclaimer: I found out about this article via Erfworld) On one hand, I see where Realkyhick is coming from, and agree with him to an extent. This whole thing lies in a grey area of notability, and I really want to say "keep it" because it does have coverage and is somewhat locally notable. However, as the mega-huge divisive argument of doom has shown, its notability is circumspect and I would say err on the side of safety. I would like to see more diverse sources cited. Perhaps as the convention grows and gets more coverage it can be put up on here, but with as many established editors as there are present saying that the article isn't notable enough then perhaps it should be taken down until its notability is less divisive. Jmclark (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If erring on the safe side has begun to mean deleting instead of not deleting... well, that makes me want to cry. --Kiz o r 01:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genderqueer pride flag[edit]

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

The flag is self-published ("The current Genderqueer flag is a design proposal of mine (Marilyn Roxie), modified from an initial attempt I had made in June 2010," from gqid.tumblr.com). No third party sources for this.

The subject of this article does not meet WP:N. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another flag that simply doesn't have any mention in reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the two (nearly identical) references, the design is one person’s proposed flag but it has apparently not been accepted by any genderqueer group. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria. --יום יפה (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just don't see sourcing for this that meets the WP:GNG after a concerted effort to search for said sources. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:08, 10 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

École normale supérieure[edit]

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

Not sourced, not notable, not MOS in many places. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More information (and two sources) can be found at w:fr:École normale supérieure, although this entry has more actual content. Definitely needs sourcing and some POV-culling, but I don't really see how it fails notability. "Not MOS" is also not a reason for deletion. At worst this could be culled to a dab page, but I don't see the need for deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep on grounds of clear notability, especially the role of "normaliens" in the administration of French society. One of Tony Judt's late memoirs in the New York Review of Books concerned his time there; he described the institution as an "elite humanist academy … distilling the status and distinction of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Stanford, Chicago, and Berkeley" (link) which seems a reasonable summary. AllyD (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For any lovers of league tables, the ENS ranks just above Carnegie Mellon and UCLA in these World University Rankings 2010. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable part of the French Higher education system and history. I already added one source and made a raw outline. I made my best to write an introduction that describes what the article is about. The history section is empty but will grow with sources. --Anneyh (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is an article about École Normale Supérieure the most renown of the currently three écoles normales supérieures. Normalien is the generic term for students in the three schools, but it may be used as considering only the main one... --Anneyh (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did the nominator make any attempt to search for sources wp:before nominating the article? A search on Google Books returns 261,000 hits, including several books specifically about the school and its history. The article needs to be sourced but the topic is definitely notable. Laurent (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: did not look for sources. did not expect something French here.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, since the no source tag had been there for almost two years, you just assumed somebody else had tried... --Anneyh (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's alot of articles about things not found in English or the English world. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - historic part of the French education system. Clearly notable. When a page is defective we fix it not delete it. TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above - subject is clearly notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:33, 6 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cum-Park Plaza[edit]

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

Contested PROD. An average strip mall. Just because it has references does not mean it is important enough for its own article. Dough 48 72 01:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are trivial, tangential mentions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another strip mall, not even close to meeting notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, as per the other comments. Though it is a great name for a strip mall! Qalana (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!!!: OK, I know its a weak keep at best, but at least it is the first shopping center in the Burlington, North Carolina, USA, metro area.[27]. In the event of deletion, please redirect to Burlington,_North_Carolina#Shopping where I can add a mention of it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:57, 6 April 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFL (Wii)[edit]

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

non notable unreleased video game, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 07:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a lot of third-party souces and community discussion. Good secondary source coverage. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Community discussion doesn't help us, but if you have located reliable secondary sources please can you link to them? Marasmusine (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this as a separate game from the Xbox / playstation game because from what I read on the external sources the game appears to be completely different. Additionally, if it were deleted, of the many games of the AFL franchise I believe this would be the first NOT to have a wikipedia article. It would also be the first to not have one when unreleased, during the timeframe of Wikipedia & AFL game releases. Furthermore, in comparison to previous titles of the franchise, this and its sister game appear (albeit only according to the developers) to be broader / larger titles then previous ones from the franchise. I also disagree with the assertion here that only having sources from the developer makes an article worthy of delete. In the case of video games a lot of publication / discussion does occur online so it is easy to verify if there is tertiary discussion etc. But in the case of games franchises dedicated for Australia there is a reasonable amount of non-web press but the community focused on grabbing these references is small so deleting an article, that already has tertiary references before further ones are added on the grounds that it is not notable enough to exist seems a bit rash.--Senor Freebie (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we're to keep this article, I'd like to have some more sources - and, as noted, none are apparent. I'm still confused as to why this game is separate from AFL Live, if they are indeed versions of the same game - if this is to be deleted, some mention there would be in order. AFL Live also has more sources; perhaps some of those mention the Wii version? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find any coverage beyond the Wicked Witch press release. Consider checking for reviews at the release date, and recreate if necessary. In the meantime, this title is listed at AFL (video game series). Marasmusine (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that does not exist, therefore this should be deleted until after it is released and the coverage exists. Mtking (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More sources have been added and I believe there is now more than enough content to keep this article. There are now five external references to AFL Wii other than the developer. They are Aussie Nintendo, MMGM, Tsumea, Tru Blu and Big Footy. In fact there are now more references than AFL Live, more content and more external references. The Age reference on the AFL Live page is an interview with the CEO of BigAnt and serves as nothing more than a press release.
Aussie-Nintendo and MMGN have merely published some screenshots released by Tru Blu. The information at Tseumea is a press release. Big Footy is a forum, not a reliable source. Tru Blu is the game publisher. None of these remotely satisfy the requirements mentioned above. Marasmusine (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are screenshots of the game AFL Wii on Aussie-Nintendo and MMGM. They also point out some key information. Aussie Nintendo states the AFL Wii is being developed, not ported by Wicked Witch. This means it is a different game than AFL Live as that is developed by BigAnt Studios. MMGM at the bottom of the page of screenshots goes on to mention that AFL Wii while similar in content is a different game, a point in contention here. If you are unwilling to accept the Tru Blu reference then this also applies to the AFL Live references. As such AFL Live would only have one valid reference (PS3 MMGM preview) as the "Game" release date is just the store product purchase and the Big League age article is nothing more than a press release by BigAnt CEO Ross. If store purchase points are valid I am happy to add these to AFL Wii. I am also happy for AFL Wii to still be under review but would this not suggest that AFL Live would also come under review? If AFL Live is acceptable I ask again that Admin please remove this tag for deletion. Raycd21 (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Raycd21[reply]

I have also added in a reference to IGN which should satisfy the requirements above. Raycd21 (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Raycd21[reply]

Keep - The two games are separate made by different developers. AFL Wii is not a port of AFL Live to the Nintendo Wii. They have different titles and box covers because they are different games. As Senor Freebie has mentioned the only similarities are A - timing, B - publisher, C - subject.

Admin please remove tag for deletion. Thanks Raycd21 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2011 (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 Libertarian Party of Canada#Leaders, any content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Young (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG as a necessary article. Little to no sourcing in the article and it lacks any real detail. Aaaccc (talk), 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete for the poor sourcing. However, I don't think it fails POLITICIAN, his party nominated 26 people in 2008, leader's of parties with less have articles. 117Avenue (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:POLITICIAN - what criterion of it does anyone propose he meets? - and apparently the GNG as well. Indeed, there are articles on the leaders of parties with less of the federal vote than Young's; that seems to me to be a good start for further AfDs, in the cases where they have no notability beyond that of their parties. Ravenswing 09:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - we may want to consider expanding the guidelines to include such cases, but not now. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - See if more sources arise and if he plays a significant role, etc... Inclusionism FTW. Enough of this knee-jerk deletion request crap. You guys are like vultures, circling overhead and waiting for an article to arise that might not have a place here.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you don't believe that any article should be deleted from Wikipedia, there are venues where you can argue your case and try to get that changed ... and given that tens of thousands of editors all the way up to Jimbo believe otherwise, your work's cut out for you. In any event, AfD is not one of those venues. Certainly pertaining to this article, WP:CRYSTAL - which is one of those core policies supporting deletion policy that you haven't yet managed to overthrow - of course precludes your premise that, well, maybe, just perhaps, someday this fellow may do something that the world notices. In the meantime, some good faith, please. This article's been hanging fire for nearly a year now and hasn't been substantively improved since its creation; this isn't one of those four-minute-after-creation AfDs, and it's uncivil to imply otherwise. Ravenswing 07:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt say EVERY article should be kept. Thats not what inclusionism is (for most). Its that articles be given the benefit of the doubt unless they are clearly blatantly unnotable. I just find it obnoxious that people frequently seem to jump on articles like vultures or jackals and insist it be deleted. I didnt say "someday" he may do something, altho I can see how that could be drawn out of my text. I was just saying that there could be sources out there. I didnt want to do this, but since no one else seems interested in defending this article, I will look for possible sources.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I searched a bit and found one more source from the Calgary Herald. It doesnt say much, but it is a source. At this point I would lean a little more towards deletion. However, an election is upon us. I think this should be delayed until after the election to see if he becomes more notable. On the other hand, a number of other minor party leaders with 2-3 sources also have articles with no deletion proposals.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're still hanging up on WP:CRYSTAL. We cannot keep an article on the premise that the subject might become notable. Obviously, should events unfold so as to confer notability on the subject, an article can be created at that time. As far as other articles go, that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but if it'll make you feel better, I'll go file AfDs on the other fringe party leaders who don't qualify. Ravenswing 20:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a leader of a registered party during an election it would be bad form to delete this entry. Being leader of a registered party is worthy enough to make someone notable, if the "guidelines" disagree, then they are flawed, and need changing, now, not later. Nickjbor (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In which case, as above, feel free to go over to the WP:POLITICIAN talk page and advocate your position. In the meantime, the guidelines are what the guidelines say, and Young neither meets WP:POLITICIAN nor the GNG. Ravenswing 09:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada. Carrite (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that does not exist, therefore this should be deleted, being the leader of a party in an election is no reason to make an exception, consider pointing the page to Libertarian Party of Canada after it is deleted. Mtking (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Party leaders are likely to be public figures. Here's the REPORT OF HIS SELECTION in the Canadian Libertarian WesternStandard.ca, so there is no fundamental issue of verifiability of his position. Here's A STORY ON YOUNG from the Calgary Herald, the biggest newspaper in the major Canadian city of Calgary, Alberta... There are over 58,000 Google hits for the specific name "Dennis Young" + the word "Libertarian." Fairly clearly a notable public figure as the Libertarians' choice for Prime Minister of Canada. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, our inclusion practices do include allowing for the leader of a duly registered political party, regardless of whether it's big or small or has 308 candidates or two, to be considered notable — but the precedent is spelled out at WP:OUTCOMES ("politicians" section) and hasn't actually been integrated into WP:POLITICIAN yet. However, they do also permit us to redirect the leader's name to the party's article if we can't adequately source an independent article about the leader himself. Accordingly, keep if decent sources pan out by close, and redirect to Libertarian Party of Canada if they don't. Bearcat (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting find, Bearcat. In that case, I would go along with merger, and fixing the discrepency. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2011 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Desa Tebrau[edit]

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

Moving to AfD from CSD. If the township is real it probably is notable, but I can't confirm this pages veracity. I also don't know enough about Malaysia to tell if it's actually a political entity or just a development. I take no position. -- Selket ^Talk 18:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to be a development, rather than a town or village, but this information will probably never be verifiable in the near future. BurtAlert (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Google News archive search link above seems to show that this is a notable developement, but, as it stands, the article has no non-promotional content worth keeping. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per google news. see no harm in keeping it.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Most of the article was a copyvio of ~~[28]~~ and [29] and [30]. I have removed the copyvio. ttonyb (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. No sources = no article. Sandstein 05:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gnews confirms this is a private development not a locality "Taman Desa Tebrau project developed by Plenitude". there is no indepth coverage to demonstrate its notability. LibStar (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Uwadi[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation by creator, but the problems which led me to PROD it and another user to endorse the PROD have not been solved. Unfortunately, this fellow simply has not received coverage in reliable sources. Like, at all. The stories cited are by him, not about him. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A PROD would probably be the best way to go, however. BurtAlert (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that's why I PRODed it - but once someone has removed a PROD tag it has to go to AfD, which is what happened here! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fair enough. Well I definitely agree with the deletion of this article. BurtAlert (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.I dont agree with the proposed deletion of this article.I created this article.It is not a copy write.The article is by me Chioma Amadi and not by any one else and has verifiable sources.The article can be improved through regular editing, rather than deletion.Also there are relevant Google search results for Kenneth Uwadichiomaamadi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for sources before endorsing Roscelese's prod. We can verify nothing other than this guy is a journalist.--Banana (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,the article is about a Nigerian journalist.At least,you have been able to varify something.There are relevant Google search results.The article can be improved through regular editing, rather than deletion.--chiomaamadi (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The search I pulled up and the references listed in the article appear to be written by the subject. The references must be about the subject and substantiate notability. I do not see where this person meets WP:GNG as these articles are by the subject, or even if any of these articles would qualify under WP:AUTHOR to attempt to qualify. Enfcer (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GDS International[edit]

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

Company does not appear to meet notability guideline. Google News & Web reveal mostly self-published or regurgitated press releases & little from independent reliable sources. Article has been COI-heavy & advert-centric before recent independent edits. Sitush (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(following cmt copied from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GDS_International_(2nd_nomination) by Sitush (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)) - This entire page is unfounded and has no such notoriety to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crysisjim (talk • contribs) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that does not exist on this company, therefore this should be deleted. Mtking (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per lack of significant verifiable coverage from independent sources to establish notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:35, 4 April 2011 (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. on notability grounds, rather than because of the owner's wishes JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Point Airfield[edit]

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

I declined a Speedy Deletion request for this, which had the reason "a user keeps adding inaccurate info which does not correspond to the wishes of the owner of the premises and he has requested that all refernce to the Airfield and its affiliated services be removed". I suggested the editor (who originally created the article in Oct 2010) should take it to AfD, but instead he blanked it - as others have substantially edited it now and it is quite different from the original version, I don't think "Author blanks" is applicable now. So I've brought it here on his behalf. I'm not sure on what grounds it could be validly deleted, but perhaps notability is a problem - it had been unsourced since creation, and I've done a Google search and found one source, but it doesn't do any more than identify it. This isn't a topic area in which I really know anything, so over to the community... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it is a conflict between the need of Wikipedia and the wishes of the owner of the airfield. The version I have reworked was in my opinion one big advertisement. That hurted the author, writing it on request of the owner (I know both personally IRL). He stated safety-issues as reason for reverting. It is unclear to me what is inaccurate, because the author didn't answer that question. I have the idea that writer+owner mistake WP for free webspace. In fact I oppose removal of the page, but I also oppose an advertisement. Eddylandzaat (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having consulted the owner of this facility tonight it is his belief that to allow individuals outside of the Airfield to comment on this page has the future potential to compromise sfaety of pilots and the public as there is the possibility that any unsubstantiated data may be posted on this site. The user who has decided that the original text of the page is unacceptable is quite obviously a busybody who has little else in his life but to edit and report a page which has existed unopposed since Oct 2010. The Airfield is thus guilty of 'advertising' that the field can provide weary pilots a cup of tea ( which is provided free of charge to all visitors), guilty of stating that we have 2 Cessna's and a few mirolights, and guilty od stating that the field has a hanger, user Landzaat should really spend his time looking for meaningful violations of wiki and stop bothering those of us who want to provide a small bit of meaningful info. We would prefer to leave the site in the state we set it up in but if user landzaat disagrees we would prefer if it is removed as inaccurate data which could be up loaded in the future may endanger pilots and the general public in the viscinity of Miltown Malbay. We are a non profit airfield and we fly for no hire nor reward so Landzaat's argument that we advertise is ridiculous, we hold a completely free to the public 'Fly In' event every year and this was an aim of this page to make this info known to as many as possible so they can enjoy a day of fun aviation by some talented pilots, again this is provided frree of charge. Mr. Landzaat has no basis to accusee us of trying to 'advertise' for benefit or profit and from discussion with some local people and neighbours they are far from impressed with this individual who calls himself a local. Please leave us alone to fly as we do not wish to upset anyone, let us administer our page or else please delete it otherwise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntreacy1981 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johntreacy1981. The thing is, it's not *your* page to administer as you wish - Wikipedia articles aren't owned by their subjects. Anyone can write about your airfield if they wish - providing it meets Wikpedia's guidelines for notability and sourcing etc - and anyone can edit articles as they see fit. The community, by discussion and consensus, gets to decide what the content of an article should be. If you think there is something wrong with the current content of an article, you should discuss it on the article's Talk page. And if you believe it should be deleted, please provide some reasons here based on Wikipedia policies -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if there is any misinformation in the article that you believe is dangerous to pilots or to the public, please identify it and we can get it corrected or removed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, if any pilot put themselves in a dangerous situation as a result of believing any hypothetical future addition of fake navigational details on this article which had been added by a vandal and escaped the usual vandal patrols, even though these fake details would not be available in any of the sources usually used by pilots, I daresay the pilot has themselves to blame. We don't delete Trepanning because of the risk that an enthusiastic reader might drill a hole in the wrong place. bobrayner (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As not notable and failing WP:GNG. As it appears to be a private field not marketed to the public (save for the fly-in) then per Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability Any unattended airport or any privately-owned airport not open to the public and not marketed in public are generally not assumed to be notable. As for the safety claim for "ownership" of the article I find it ridiculous. Any pilot that would plan a trip solely using Wikipedia doesn't deserve to hold a license in the first place. Ravendrop 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apparently fails the notability criteria as it is PPR only. No indication that the airfield has any notable history which would push it above the criteria. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline as I could find no significant coverage about the airfield in reliable sources. The WikiProject Airports notability suggestions referred to above also suggest it should not be regarded as notable. I haven't seen a valid keep rationale here yet - but notability isn't everything so if someone comes up with one I would be happy to reconsider my vote.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charon (software)[edit]

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

Non notable emulation software, the article does not mention any relevant source. The article also is written in a scientific and may be too technical for most readers to understand. I tried to find any notable source for the article, but no academical or publication coverage could be found. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 06:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Firstly, the article is not written in a scientific manner. Secondly, an article that is too technical for most readers is not a reason for deletion. If it is, I would like to see a policy or guideline that says so. Regarding notability, I'll look for references. Rilak (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After doing a few Google searches, and looking at the references listed in the article, I am unsure as to what the best course of action is, but keeping the article is a very unlikely option.

Firstly, the Find sources template should not be used as the topic is not called Charon (software). It's called Charon (when referring to the family of products), and the three members are called Charon-AXP, Charon-11, and Charon-VAX (AXP, 11, and VAX refers to the Alpha, PDP-11, and VAX architectures, respectively. Search queries should be constructed from the above terms if a proper search is to be done.

Secondly, the nominator's claim that the article does not have any relevant sources is questionable. The fourth reference is an article hosted by Stromasys, the developers of Charon. While it is hosted by Stromasys, the article is a reprint of article in iX, a monthly German magazine for IT professionals published by Heinz Heise (Oliver Muller, "Neue Heimat", iX, Sep. 2010, pp. 99–102, https://www.heise.de/artikel-archiv-ix/2010/9/99 — subscription is required unless one were to view the reprint). I can't read German, so I cannot evaluate the article properly, but its title is "New Home" (which makes sense as an emulator runs software for historical computers on new ones), and it appears non-trivial, with benchmarks executed on both the emulator and the original hardware. Even if this article is relevant, however, I do not believe it alone can establish notability, but I do think that a mention of Charon-VAX can be made somewhere, perhaps at VAX.

Coverage of Charon in English sources is trivial. In a July 5, 2005 article by Patrick Thibodeau titled "VAX Users See the Writing on the Wall" in Computerworld (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/94314/VAX_Users_See_the_Writing_on_the_Wall) there is a brief mention of Charon-VAX as a migration option for retired VAX, which the articles states was a popular series of computers.

In a 2000 paper by Seamus Ross of the University of Glasgow titled "Changing Trains at Wigan: Digital Preservation and the Future of Scholarship" presented the at Warwick II Conference (which I can find nothing about, but according to Google, the paper has been cited 37 times), on page 19, there is a paragraph discussing the virtue of emulation as a means of providing long-term access to historical hardware and software for research. The paragraph continues on to page 20, where the last sentence says "Other well known emulations and simulations include ...PDP-11[103]..." Footnote 103 lists well-known PDP-11 emulators including Charon.

In Schaum's Outline of Computer Science, on page 49, Charon-VAX is mentioned as an emulator for the popular VAX series of computers. There is also a conference paper from the International Automatic Testing Conference regarding what appears to be the migration of a VAX-based system to one based on Charon-VAX. Rilak (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In my opinion the article should be remained as I found some relevant sources. Although I found this on the company´s website I think it is important: Gartner considers processor emulation as one of the two very separate use models – apart from creating low-end models - for allowing legacy applications, written for older architectures, to be deployed on newer platforms. Transitive Corporation (which was acquired by IBM in 2008) and Stromasys are considered by Gartner as the most mature vendor examples (see http://www.stromasys.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/media/Gartner_Hype_Cycle.pdf.)

What is more, CHARON-VAX and CHARON-AXP are officially supported by Hewlett-Packard, as owner of the OpenVMS and Tru64 OS (see http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/sri-charon-vax-emulator.html?) and Oracle, as owner of Oracle RDB (see http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/rdb/charon-vax-097107.html)

More articles about CHARON can be found on the most important forum for OpenVMS e.g. openvms.org (see http://www.openvms.org/search.php?query=charon&what=stories&limit=100)

If the article can not be kept, please advise what queries should be constructed for the articles about VAX, AlphaServer, OpenVMS and Tru64 as the CHARON software is emulating OpenVMS and Tru64 applications from PDP-11, VAX and/ or AlphaServer to x86 IT architecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanja.Semet (talk • contribs) 12:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The software is a leader in a very specialised field on a limited number of platforms. It is possible to take references from sites such as Oracle.com which recommend its use for specialised situations. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a leader, being listed on Oracle's website, or even being the kewlest thing since sliced bread is meaningless in the context of meeting the guidelines for inclusion. According to the WP:GNG, this package doesn't pass. No significant coverage from independent 3rd party sources to verify. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about the Gartner report, the OpenVMS forum and the magazine? In my oponion these are independet parties. The Gartner report says CHARON emulators are the most important emulators for DEC systems. Many companies and government departments like ABB or the Canadian Department of National Defense use OpenVMS and use CHARON emulators. So I think the article fulfils the qualifications.

Tanja.Semet (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_system_emulators there are many emulators not linked. Maybe the contribution about Stromasys/CHARON should be re-written in a more product type way like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QEMU or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(emulator) to complete this list.

Keesekuchen (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Kowalski[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited, and, with no reliable sources, this article does not establish the notability of this violinist. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not (yet) notable. Usual Caveats apply, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom criteria, as her notability can not be derived from her connection with the bands listed. A search show mainly social networking sites. They do not appear to meet WP:GNG & WP:NMUSIC guidelines. Enfcer (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Rashid[edit]

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

Non notable Arabic actor, the article itself looks like a trivia and Wikipedia is strictly declined towards it per WP:TRIVIA. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability, based on the sources I'm seeing. Arabic isn't really my thing, though - it's possible I'm missing something really obvious. Sources about the subject would be a big help. Usual Caveats apply. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find sourcing for this gentleman either. Please note that the AfD notice was taken down from the article not long after its original placement there, I've restored it.. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When it says "his plays" no one knows how that is defined.--Effingcrazy (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2011 (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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Peart[edit]

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

He is only notable for one event, and Alston Moor Regeneration Society is not a notable organisation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He has had a lot of international media coverage. IJA (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alston, Cumbria#2005: Alston in crisis? (possibly with a better-named redirect destination). The incident he was involved in is sufficiently high-profile to warrant a mention in article on the town, but the event, let alone the person connected with the event, is a long way off the notability for a separate article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BLP1E is irrelevant in this case. "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." There is no event article. BLP1E is not more strict than NTEMP because WP wants to delete both event and BLP, it is more strict because someone has to be very notable to have both. Ideally, that should mean that there should have first been an event article written, but in this case, the media chose to write the story as about him, and the content of the article followed. Who is going to write an event article about this? Not me. And by definition, he is more famous than the town; why else would he have done what he did? Anarchangel (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of a merge target doesn't invalidate BLP1E; it would reinforce that the event is not notable. However that isn't the case here; this event is notable enough to warrant a section, and it already exists at Alston,_Cumbria#2005:_Alston_in_crisis?. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the media articles I was able to read (and weren't deadlinks) were all primarily about the campaign rather than the founder. Vince Peart's coverage was mainly limited to some quotes in the articles (typically halfway through) and an interview on the BBC about the campaign. I don't see why you should keep an article about a WP:BIO1E just because there's no page about the event yet - that would simply warrant renaming to and rewriting the article about the event. But in this case, the lack of enduring notability puts the event a long way off WP:EVENT, so a mention in Alston, Cumbria seems like the correct location to me. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International coverage. The symptoms of the event are local, but the ramifications are national, and the impact on the press went much further than local stories usually go. Under EVENT, WP:GEOSCOPE: "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely, but does not automatically assure it"

Also under EVENT, WP:DIVERSE coverage; covered as a human interest story by many, it was also covered as business news Internet Business News - ECNext.

Anarchangel (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 3 April 2011 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Selection[edit]

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

Non-notable song by itself. Merge to artist's article instead failing WP:GNG. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 11:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability as per WP:NSONG. There are no reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the song and no claim of notability.--Michaela den (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some Chords[edit]

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

Non-notable song by itself. Merge to artist's article instead failing WP:GNG. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 11:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability as per WP:NSONG. There are no reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the song and no claim of notability.--Michaela den (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Bowers[edit]

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

Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. A long article which, in the end, makes very few claims to notability, none of which are verifiable. The article was created by a now-blocked WP:SPA account and looks like WP:VANITY. I could only find one, passing, media reference to the subject in a 1993 newsletter. I'm also nominating the subject's albums, which are similarly non-notable. Note that the article previously did include one reference[31], but I removed it as it didn't support any of the claims in the article. Pburka (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Pburka (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Pburka (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pburka (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Pburka (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating his non-notable record label: —Pburka (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article purports that the subject is an engineer and an artist. Based on the information given in the article, the article's subject fails to meet the criteria WP:CREATIVE for both fields, and beyond that I am not finding sources through Google which would indicate otherwise. The section on personal life is irrelevant for determining notability. The related articles in this AfD are the subject's own music label and four music albums self-published through that label. Because the creator is not notable, and because the label also makes no claim of publishing any notable work or anything by a notable person, I am also recommending deletion for the label article. Finally since the label and creator are non-notable I am recommending deletion for all four album articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did correct the Allmusic external link, but the subject still fails WP:CREATIVE. GcSwRhIc (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2011 (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisette Cooper[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:BIO. The lone current reference provides only superficial coverage and I was unable to find anything more substantial in third-party sources. Note that Mrs. Cooper was formerly known as "Lisette Keto". Pichpich (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although clearly a smart and successful businesswoman, the only substantive reference is a human interest story about how she spends the late December holiday period. Accordingly, not notable by Wikipedia standards. Cullen328 (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I personally believe that being a PhD is important and all and being a professor at an university is important and everything... BUT... First of all, WP:BIO is clear. MULTIPLE sources. Publication of an academic article IS NOT a source. Most professors publish academic articles and are not worthy of a wikipedia article. Also fails WP:ACADEMIC anyways. All statements that give some hint of notability, are unsourced. Even if they were, they still fail the professor test. Second of all, the main contributor is a contributor solely on this article... (I know this on its own is not an argument, but it is an indication. However, I know some other users are smarter about this and still write unworthy bios, sometimes their own, but manage to keep them just because they contributed in other articles to the point of receiving barnstars. Their bio is still unworthy nonetheless. But that's another topic altogether). -- Loukinho (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ACADEMIC doesn't apply here because the assertion of notability is as a business executive, not an academic. The applicable policy is the WP:GNG, which she fails. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1N5401[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability for this tiny electronic part. A parts catalog entry; Wikipedia is not a parts catalog or semiconductor substitution guide. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete - Agree that there really doesn't seem to be anywhere near enough, if any, notability here, nor assertion. Good subject for cleanup. This also should have been allowed to be deleted via PROD. — Becksguy (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 1N540X All the other entries at 1N540X redirect to that article, so should this one. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable diode. Being a tiny electronic part is not a policy-based argument for deletion. Our actual policy is to preserve content. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator How about lack of notability? It's ONE diode in a series of unremarkable parts. Even if this was merged to "1N540X" ( a silly name for an article, no-body calls it that), it's still not notable. You don't preserve everything hanging on the branch, just the fruit. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I strongly argued to Keep on the other side of Wtshymanski's position in 2N3055's AfD, but in this AfD he is totally correct. I'm normally in favor of saving articles that have intrinsic notability, but that require rescue work to find the WP:RS or to clean up per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, but this device is non-notable. The device has been listed in many hobbyist articles and parts listings, but without any context on the device, or more than mentioning it as a part to be used. Nothing that establishes the notability of the device. No one has found any RS. There's no "there" there. — Becksguy (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply This is exactly why sometimes you don't lump all the AfDs together in mass. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - And it's why you should have been more selective in you mass AdD nominations; by treating them all alike, you turned what should have been an easy uncontested PROD into a part of a big ruckus. Dicklyon (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't understand, here's where it got the PROD tag removed [32]]. Left to itself the article would have continued undisturbed and irrelevant forever. Has anyone noticed we're arguing about an article about a DIODE? All the Trekkies down at the comic book store are sniggling "Get a life!". --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you read the edit summary there? You made it part of a class... Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Do not forget the comments I placed on your talk page at the same time as the deprod: [33] You chose not to take those on board. Fair enough, but don't pretend that it was a deprod without any rationale. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the other parts articles in question are all a bit more in a grey area, but this one pretty clearly has no notable coverage, and being a part does not give inherent notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 1N540X. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this fails the GNG --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails the GNG, and I don't think Wikipedia should attempt to be an electronic parts catalogue. Reyk _YO! 01:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for the moment, anyway. Are the GNG satisfied? Definitely - they are for the vast majority of common electronic components. A listing in an equivalents handbook fulfills the notability requirements - significant, reliable & independent. Indeed, since the whole purpose of equivalents books is to compare and contrast components with each other (often it becomes what other component would be suitable for a given job, rather than what is a direct substitute) there is a certain amount of depth there.
Yesterday I went to the local university library and in the space of ten minutes had grabbed four such guides. The 1N5401 was in three of them and diodes turned out to be outside the scope of the fourth. The GNG are satisfied.
I've said elsewhere that I don't believe that this necessarily translates into a worthy topic for an encyclopaedia article but that is why general principals are needed in place of dozens of separate and independent but inextricably linked debates. On the basis of policy as it exists now there are no real grounds for deletion. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see we have a redirect edit war started already. I would have done that myself if I thought it was OK to do so while the AfD is open. What's the correct policy on this? Dicklyon (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, the article should not be changed to a redirect while an AfD is in progress.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected. So let me ask this: does anyone object to the redirect to 1N540X, which will itself probably be redirected to the merged article 1N400X, which may get renamed to reflect the expanded scope? Does anything still want to argue for keep or delete instead? Dicklyon (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know what I think. No matter how many bits of floating wood we find, it's still not going to make a cabin cruiser. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Performing the redirect whilst the AfD is still under discussion was disruptive and against policy, made worse because it by no means reflected the most likely outcome of this AfD. Although I broadly support that outcome (see below, but note that there's a merge in my recommendation too) if you look at the arguments at the point the redirect was done there was no agreement: two of the three "merge and redirects" have no rationales (this is not a numerical vote; they may as well not be there), leaving opinion divided between keep and delete, all based on whether notability guidelines are met or not. If I was closing the debate at that point it would most likely have been as "no consensus", which defaults to leaving things as they are. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1N540X and redirect. Notable diode but the series clearly forms a group with considerable similarities between them, and all belong together in one article . RichardOSmith (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The merge has been done already. If we could close this AfD, even with "no consensus", we could get on with it. Nobody is going to object to the redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1N540X[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No assertion of general notability of this series of tiny electronic parts. Wikipedia is not a parts catalog or semiconductor cross-reference guide. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete - This one should have been allowed to be deleted via PROD. Agree there is no assertion of notability, nor apparently any notability at all. Good subject for cleanup. — Becksguy (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - combine with its more notable cousin 1N400X; they are all treated in the same table in this book, for example. Dicklyon (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of interest: where can I learn about the ranked notability of semiconductor devices? This would be a great help in the current discussions. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you would just close it we could get on with changing it to a redirect, now that its contents have been merged per my proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to an appropriate target (a merge seems to have already been done). No indicators of notability outside of being on lists of parts.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like it fails the GNG --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 23:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not an electronic parts catalogue. This does not appear to pass the GNG. Reyk _YO! 01:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the significant coverage needed to demonstrate notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 03:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the page that it has already been merged with: 1N400X. I would have done this already, but with the AfD tag on it, it seemed to be not doable. A separate question will be whether to rename the merged article. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for the moment, anyway. Are the GNG satisfied? Definitely - they are for the vast majority of common electronic components. A listing in an equivalents handbook fulfills the notability requirements - significant, reliable & independent. Indeed, since the whole purpose of equivalents books is to compare and contrast components with each other (often it becomes what other component would be suitable for a given job, rather than what is a direct substitute) there is a certain amount of depth there. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going way too far with that interpretation that makes just about every part number notable. These diodes needs to be covered, as they're popular and discussed in a lot of places, but just being in an equivalents list is not a good reason. What's your opinion on covering them in 1N400X, as I merged it (and moving to a better name)? Dicklyon (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read through WP:N with an equivalents handbook in mind:

Is it significant? Well, it deals with the listed component directly and the good ones provide details of basic parameters for the device. Listing equivalents is fundamentally a comparative analysis for each listed entry. If we look at what would be a fairly typical entry for a given component then after the basic parameters we may see something like:

ABC123; ABC124; IJK100 (to 1MHz); XYZ99 (to 50V).

That's a very terse description to save space but it contains a lot of analysis: the ABC123 & ABC124 are drop-in substitutes. The IJK100 may function as a replacement for a given application but only if is is operating at a frequency of less than 1MHz. The XYZ99 may also be a suitable replacement provided the the voltage is under 50V. Presumably the operating limits of the component listed are higher in both of those respects. Note that nothing precludes coverage in tabular form or requires a certain length of coverage: it is the content that matters. Therefore nothing at N precludes the listing from counting as significant.

Is is reliable? An equivalents book is a functional thing: no-one would trust it if it was not reliable. Publishers make great efforts to ensure accuracy and are usually independent of the component manufacturers. The independent listings generally have no hint of bias and will list any suitable device, regardless of e.g. manufacturer.

Sources An independently published guide qualifies as a secondary source in regards the devices it lists.

Is it independent? As touched upon at reliability, most guides are from independent publishers. There are on the other hand a few single-manufacturer listings, usually distributed by the manufacturers themselves. We may have issues with those on this criterion but not the independent handbooks.

I don't consider that allowing an equivalents listing does set the bar particularly low. It is simply in the very nature of an equivalents guide to be comprehensive when considering large numbers of components - it is the equivalents guide hitting what we need square on the head, rather than letting just anything go. I share the concern that this would allow huge numbers of components to go through but that is the way N is written at the moment. That is what I have been saying all along: we need general principles first rather than a piecemeal approach that makes for an inconsistent mess.

If you consider the whole gamut of electronics components as a notability spectrum, you have e.g. 21K 0.5W metal film resistor at one end and Intel 80386 at the other. Between them perhaps in the middle you have a few widely discussed special-purpose chips - NE555 and MAX232 would be examples that I'd argue retaining are no-brainers. Beneath those you have the individual discrete components like the 1N540x series we are discussing here. Most of these probably do need weeding but policy as it exists now makes most of them notable simply because of the available references. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2011 (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. Sandstein 05:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boxbe[edit]

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

This site is a phishing scheme to get email addresses for spammers, but we are apparently unable to find reliable sources about it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Books gives The Economist and Kerry Gleeson (2008). The Personal Efficiency Program: How to Stop Feeling Overwhelmed and Win Back Control of Your Work (4th ed.). John Wiley and Sons. p. 134. ISBN 0470371315.. Google News gives 34 hits. Southend sofa (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only one hit in Google news for me... Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now get 38 hits from this. Southend sofa (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your (Sławomir Biały's) search is only for articles published in the last month, so it's not surprising that it misses most of the relevant articles. Relevant search links are automatically provided in the nomination statement to inform the discussion, so why not just look at those rather than link the results of a search that is useless for the purpose of checking notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - above link shows coverage in MIT technology review. This along with mention in the Economist suggests that this software has notable coverage. Dialectric (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as dialectric states.. link and economists.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dauwa ahirs[edit]

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

Article denotes a somewhat bourgeois/noble family, and wikipedia is not a genealogical tree website. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see notability. --bender235 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not clear what this is much less how it might be notable RadioFan (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G1 or A1. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2011 (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.