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

The result was Withdrawn (WP:NAC). JJ98 (Talk) 10:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Cartoons[edit]

Cartoon Cartoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Only 2 sources, I can't find any more sources related to the article. JJ98 (Talk) 23:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 23:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Clearly notable Cartoon Network series. Eauhomme (talk) 06:20, 12 June 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) Doh5678 (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandusky (automobile company)[edit]

Sandusky (automobile company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Perhaps this is notable. Perhaps. If it is, there needs to be some real sourcing provided, and I am unable to find any. Brochures, sales flyers, and ads just don't cut the mustard. Courcelles 22:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's pretty much not even a strong assertion of importance here, let alone any evidence of notability. If it exists, it needs to be actually put forth and added to the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Keep per most recent round of edits made by Cullen. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Google books search under the company name and also "Sandusky runabout" shows significant coverage of this short-lived auto manufacturer active over 100 years ago. The content is encyclopedic, and I consider a company that actually manufactured cars, even if only for two years, to be notable. Cullen328 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I echo Courcelles' concern. If Cullen328 has found these sources, xe might to well to actually provide them. Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC) keep due to the sources provided by Cullen, as opposed to Warden's holier-than-thou "use the search links at the top! What do you mean this isn't clearly discernible from "sources are so easy to find that I am not understanding the nominator's problem?" Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is clearly notable. Sources seem so easy to find that I am not understanding the nominator's problem. Warden (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, Warden - if you have sources, show them. Ironholds (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see the search engine links provided conveniently at the head of the discussion. Editors should use these to inform themselves about the topic under discussion. Some tweaking of the search string may be required when the article title is qualified with a disambiguation clause, as in this case. If you have not taken such action, please say so, so that your opinion may be discounted accordingly. Warden (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I believe that AfD nominators should make a good faith effort to look for reliable sources before nominating an article. Earlier today, I said how I found such sources but didn't have time then to write them up. Now I do and here are sufficient sources, I believe, to establish notability: The Antique automobile, Volume 49, published by the Antique Automobile Club of America, wrote in 1985 that the Sandusky Automobile Company was founded by James J. Hinde who "had been a successful paper manufacturer who entered the automobile business with the belief that a small, reasonably priced car could capture a mass market." It seems that this concept influenced Henry Ford. Northwest Ohio Quarterly, publication of the Lucas County/Maumee Valley Historical Society, ran a 12 page profile of the company in 1980. This article stated that "the Sandusky Automobile Company may be far more significant because of the passing interest of Henry Ford than for the number of cars they built and sold. At the time Ford was not yet a manufacturing magnate. He was a successful engineer turned inventor, who had given up his profession to enter the automotive field." Corporate America: a historical bibliography summarized this article by saying that it "traces the history of the Sandusky Automobile Company, focusing on the conceptual contributions made by Sandusky president James J. Hinde to the production strategy of Henry Ford." A Sandusky car was described in detail in Chilton's Automobile trade journal in 1903. Another detailed description was published in The Horseless age: the automobile trade magazine in 1903. The Sandusky Courier F was described in Automobiles of the world, published by Simon and Schuster in 1977. Chilton's Automotive Industries, Volume 10 wrote that the company "Has three light cars and a chassis, posessing points of novelty and merit" in 1903. The Standard Catalog of American Cars 1805-1942, published in 1996, described the Sandusky Courier. The Motor way described the Sandusky Runabout in 1903.Cullen328 (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You may believe whatever you want about WP:BEFORE, and when you succeed in having it stuck in as a mandatory prerequisite to nominations, you might actually be right. Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cullen. Echo the same good faith sentiment. One of the Afd's today is because the nom could "only find 2 sources" for a current notable American TV series. Eauhomme (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And this AfD was nowhere near so ludicrous, so please don't insist it is. Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources have been found, definitely a notable chapter and company in the history of the automobile. First Light (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It appears that some sources are available (great work, Cullen!), but I'm going to go ahead and point out that unless someone can and does actually use them in the article to show notability, the problem that caused the article to be AfD'd isn't actually, you know, fixed. The mere presentation of them on the AfD doesn't remedy the fact that the article in its current state shows no notability (even if the notability is "having been a car company way early in the history of car production", the article doesn't even say that). I'd be happy to switch my vote to keep if someone can actually integrate the sources into the article in such a way that the article then asserts notability. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG doesn't require that an article is well-referenced in order to be kept at AfD, only that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This topic/article clearly meets the requirements of WP:GNG, and therefore should clearly (and will almost surely) be kept. The fact that those references aren't being used in the article isn't an issue for AfD, but rather for a template such as ((Template:Refimprove)). First Light (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple more references: [1] and [2]. First Light (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment ill advised nom, since there are a hundred just like this; the "show me the refs" taunt, does tend to get egg on face. maybe we have enough people here for a project to improve early auto articles? as opposed to arguing. Slowking4 (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't speak for Courcelles, but I hope you're not referring to me when you claim people were "taunting". I'm simply asking that people who actually (seem to) know something about this car (as opposed to me, who can't really make heads or tails of how to process Cullen, etc's links into actual useful article prose, since I don't know cars, new or historical) add their sources to the article so that the notability is clear. If the article's notability is established by sourcing the article, I will consider that a win for Wikipedia, not a source of "egg on one's face". If keep !voters here continue to list sources but refuse to use them in the article, I will be disappointed at what would appear to be cutting off the nose of the 'pedia to spite AfD voters. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To repeat something I said above, the references don't have to be added to the article to show notability. It only has to be shown that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources". That has been amply demonstrated. Some of those sources actually have been added if you look, to the article, by the Keep voters—though anyone can add references, even those who continue to vote to Delete an article that "has received significant coverage....". And let us assume good faith about those who have supplied sources here without adding them all to the article. They are helping to save a notable subject from deletion, thus improving Wikipedia, and adding to the sum of all human knowledge. They should be applauded for their efforts. First Light (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've expanded the article a bit and added some sources. I readily admit that the article still needs more work, but all editors should remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. We don't have to make this article perfect right now, and there is no perfect article, but we ought to preserve encyclopedic content and references. Perhaps a young Sandusky historian will come along, search out the full sources in a local library or historical society, and expand this article into one we can all be proud of. If we delete this article now, that chance will be significantly reduced. Let's keep it and work on it. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perfect, Cullen! That's exactly what I was hoping someone could pull off for this article; the importance of the company is now clear in the article text. Switched my vote above to keep. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can see no reason to delete. It has been verified and is notable as one of the pioneering manufacturers of the automobile. Greenmaven (talk) 06:23, 16 June 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) 01:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Aguirre[edit]

Richard Aguirre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article fails WP:POLITICIAN, the notability criteria for politicians. The article was deleted in 2008 for the same reason and it doesn't seem like much has changed. There is also a redirect page at Richard William Aguirre. – Zntrip 21:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He fails WP:POLITICIAN as he has never been elected, and no other persuasive claim of notability is made. Musical work is not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete. The article has been changed to biography of living person WP:BLP and all of the foot notes support it. It is no longer marked as a WP:POLITICIAN, it is now WP:BLP Wikimikesd (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — Wikimikesd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Don't Delete WP:BLP the article is being worked on to fit all the "Biography of a living Person" requirements. Wikimikesd (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The first paragraphs of the article discuss his political candidacies. Accordingly, our notability guidelines for politicians should guide this unless there is a convincing claim for notability in an area other than politics. For example, Ross Perot was a notable businessman as well as an unsuccessful presidential candidate. How, on the other hand, is this person notable? Cullen328 (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As even the SPA pushing this article implies, the subject certainly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Unfortunately for the SPA's premise that removing the political angle suddenly makes the subject notable, there's no other criteria under which he succeeds of notability either. Fails WP:BIO and the GNG.  Ravenswing  06:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt under both versions of his name, Richard Aguirre and Richard William Aguirre. This guy again? This is actually his FOURTH AfD nomination. An article about him (as Richard Aguirre) was AfD'ed in August 2008. Articles about him (as Richard William Aguirre) were also AfD'ed, twice, in July 2009 and in May 2010. Enough is enough. He was non-notable in 2010 (where he got 4% of the vote in the primary election) and he is non-notable now. Most of the references are not Reliable Sources (blogs etc.) or do not provide substantial coverage. For example, the Union-Tribune link is just a blogger commenting that he has seen Aguirre's campaign signs. --MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 13 June 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 (closing as speedy; all the hallmarks of a hoax/something made up one day). Neutrality^talk 05:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Government of the Republic of Cantonia[edit]

Provisional Government of the Republic of Cantonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Hoax article about a nonexistent "symbolic" "secret" government by "Cantonese supremacists" (?) Fails the General notability guideline by a long shot; has zero coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. PROD was contested by creator. Quigley (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Even if the creator of the article could produce a website, there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. Quigley (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Also the original "primary" sources put into the article by the creator do not mention the existence of the "Republic of Cantonia" at all, being about unrelated stories of protests and riots. see here for the sourcesΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete either a hoax or completely non-verifiable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep:I search "Republic of Cantonia" on Google, and found multiple sites, one of those sites is the official website of Republic of Cantonia. I believe that the organization is operating undercover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isuzu1001 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing one would find from googling "Republic of Cantonia", are multiple internet forums and a facebook page- not WP:RS.google results for "republic of cantonia", from the main site google.com ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a youtube channel presumably made by you or your class friends. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nonsense ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 22:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep:There are more information in Latinized Cantonese and Chinese than English, please carefully consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isuzu1001 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Don't double !vote like that, bud. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Take it to the Fairy Tale Wiki on Wikia. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:39, 12 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fiat justitia[edit]

Fiat justitia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Rather poor claim to notability: this phrase is painted at the bottom of a judge's portrait, and it's the motto of a couple of organisations. No significant coverage. Most of the Google Books results seem to be using the phrase as an epigraph rather than discussing it directly ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 21:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this specific phrase has a technical legal meaning: I've added a reference. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure it does have a meaning, though my Latin knowledge was far too rudimentary to determine it ;) However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and if the only point about this phrase that can be cited is that it has a meaning, then it probably doesn't meet the SIGCOV criterion... ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 21:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not (yet) commenting on the notability but of course the phrase has a meaning. However my point was that in the legal context the phrase is jussive and its pronouncement expresses or encodes a specific action, similar to La reine s'avisera. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prase I was looking for was performative utterance. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are numerous references to this in the context of a writ of error. It may also be an abbreviated form of fiat justitia ruat caelum. We should assist readers in search of these relevant topics and so deletion would be disruptive. Warden (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I'm still genuinely struggling to find coverage of this topic. Are you able to identify any? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 08:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to List of Latin phrases (F). Neutrality^talk 04:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've expanded the entry after recourse to a further source (as a rule of thumb an entry in the encyclopedic Oxford Companion to Law is likely to be a sure sign of notability). It relates to an important topic which Wikipedia now covers wholly inadequately, that is the development of the means by which official mistakes or actions could be challenged in the courts. Writ of error now leads to Appeal where it does not seem to be mentioned, but it is historically a very notable legal device. I'd be happy to see fiat justitia merged if there were an article which dealt with the appeal mechanism in its historical context, but I don't see one. --AJHingston (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Fiat justitia ruat caelum. This phrase is an abbreviation of that one and I do not see the need to dilute content over two articles. Reyk _YO! 22:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't an abbreviation. The words stand on their own and had a specific legal significance and purpose. The fact that they appear in other phrases is irrelevant (most words do). --AJHingston (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The RAFPD usage alone justifies this having its own article. James470 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  So WP:INHERITED then? ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 07:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's actually a very notable "performative utterance" with a far more venerable history than has been touched on so far in the discussion here or in the article in its current form (meaning no criticism to any contributors to date). After the Magna Carta, the King responded to petitions of right (and sometimes to those of grace and favor) with "Fiat justitia." The Vetus Codex (a/k/a, The Black Book of the Tower), a transcription of 14th century petitions to Edward I, many answered thus, appears to have been consulted by members of the Long Parliament and may well have influenced the Commons' drafting of the Petition of Right to Charles I, who responded to the Bill of Attainder against his minister, Strafford, by begging the House of Lords to help him convince the Commons to impose a sentence of life imprisonment rather than to execute Strafford, but conceded, "If, however, nothing less than his life can satisfy my people, then must I say, Fiat justitia!", a rather famous event in English Constitutional history. The Charles Sumner address that's cited in the Fiat justitia ruat caelum article itself cites some of the distinct history of Fiat justitia, but Sumner lacked the legal histories of Pollard and Maitland that were published later in the 19th century and the early 20th century, as well as access to The Egerton Papers. With respect to Fiat justitia as the historical response to a Writ of Error, Pollard explained in The Evolution of Parliament that the greatest hardships experienced by parties before the medieval English courts were far less often the errors courts might commit than their interminable delays in resolving cases, a violation of one of the most significant rights confirmed by the Magna Carta. Parties who found themselves in such straights could and often did petition medieval Parliaments to move such cases forward by issuing the order, Fiat justitia durante parliamento ("Let there be justice during Parliament"). There are quite a lot of sources available on this -- including some available in Google Books -- but a well done article will require a fair amount of work and a reasonable amount of familiarity with the subject. In any case, FWIW, I could not agree with AJHingston and the others urging this to be kept any more emphatically.Ravinpa (talk) 00:47, 14 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Gonzalez (actor)[edit]

Bobby Gonzalez (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another non-notable child actor, with no source but the IMDb. Orange Mike | Talk 21:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article lacking the inclusion of easily available sources is always a concern, but not always a sound reason to delete. He has sourcable notability for 4 years and 45 episodes of a notable series... the problem for this individual meriting a seperate article is simply that ENT requires multiple productions, not just one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ENTERTAINER, no multiple notable roles. Tassedethe (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:TOOSOON as reasonable search term to The Brothers Garcia as the one notable series for which this individual has sourcability. While nice that this youngster had a significant recurring role over four years and in all 45 episodes of that show... per WP:ENT, ONE series, no matter how many seasons or years, is not considered "multiple" productions. And though his work in that series can be easily verified, and the coverage of his role approaches meeting WP:GNG,[3] that coverage becomes a BLP-one-four-year-long-event. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:27, 13 June 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 (G7) by Mufka. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donica Covey[edit]

Donica Covey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Writer of suspect notability - possibly autobiographical/self-promotion. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Google news search brings up no returns. Many of the titles appear to be either self-published or published through e-book outlets. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was going to nominate this at some point if the creator didn't come up with something. There's no evidence of notability in the article, and a google search didn't reveal anything credible. There are lots of social networking-type entries referring to her as "best selling" and even "award winning", but I can't find any reliable sources to back these claims up.--BelovedFreak 21:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now author-blanked.--BelovedFreak 21:16, 11 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Biersack[edit]

Andrew Biersack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prod for BLP with no sources was contested without anyone having added a source. N^oformation ^Talk 20:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think I may have been justified in restoring the prod, but I have read before that a page should only be prod'd once and I'm not sure if there's an exception for BLP violations. N^oformation ^Talk 22:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ProdBLP is a "sticky" prod that can be replaced if it is removed without sources being added. But there are plenty of other reasons to delete this entry, this person is not notable, there has never been a good claim of individual notability in any of the versions of this entry. The original version Andy Six has served on and off as a redirect to this person's band, but it gets persistently un-redirected, despite a lack of both good refs and individual notability. So delete or at least redirect + protect. Hairhorn (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also delete (or protect) the duplicate entries Andy Six and Andy Sixx which are currently both redirects. Hairhorn (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Maybe protecting all the redirects would be a good idea. If this person ever does become more notable then perhaps someone can request to remove protection, but right now it seems that these titles are more trouble than they are worth. N^oformation ^Talk 00:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 12 June 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 Move to Wiktionary. -- DQ (t) (e) 23:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fan fiction terms[edit]

List of fan fiction terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Largely unsourced, un-encylopedic writing (especially in the lead), and the majority of terms defined totally fails notability. Notable terms have their own articles, as indicated by the lead. Goes directly against WP:DICTIONARY. No indication that issues raised in previous deletion debates have been attended to (and in all honsety I'm amazed it survived them). U-Mos (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to wiktionary 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or transwiki: Not only have the "issues" cited by the Keep voters in the previous AfD not been tackled in the last year and a half, I question what was the end result they had in mind? An indiscriminate, unsourced list of jargon dicdefs - many of which are unsourceable neologisms - be it ever so nicely spruced up and sourced out of the blue, does not belong on Wikipedia. Period. It belongs on Wikitionary. It always did.  Ravenswing  06:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move As per above. I fail to see how this passes the very first sentence of WP:Dictionary Bstbll (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to Wiktionary where this stuff belongs. It doesn't belong here. Reyk _YO! 07:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki most of the text, but keep this article as a list of links to such Wiktionary topics, because these do represent a cohesive set of definitions. Of course, some of these still need sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep - this was just kept three months ago. I don't see consensus changing much less jelling anytime soon. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) My bad. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check your dates again. That keep was well over a year ago, not three months.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that being said, as far as consensus changing? Err ... look at this discussion. Other than your "procedural keep," there is in fact unanimous consensus that this article does not belong on Wikipedia.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  22:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to wiktionary Can't see this going beyond Dictionary definitions. AIRcorn (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is precedent that glossaries are allowed. Which doesn't mean that we have to keep listcruft. Ma^t_chups 11:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wiktionary - As an avid reader and writer of fan fiction, I can testify that this article is a extremely useful and reasonably accurate resource. But Wikipedia is not the place for it, for reasons already mentioned above. Moreover, two previous deletion nominations have failed to motivate editors to bring the article up to standard. One editor even boasted in a previous AfD that "I am, off the top of my head, aware of three scholarly treatments of fanfiction published in academic presses... Well over half of these terms could readily be sourced to those three books alone... To say that this cannot be sourced requires the willful ignoring of so many sources as to be comical," yet in the over a year since that AfD was opened, he failed to produce even one new source for the article. Since not even the threat of deletion can prompt people to get this to resemble a proper Wikipedia article, moving it elsewhere is the logical course.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Move content to Wiktionary and leave a soft redirect: I will admit that I do not have much experience over at Wiktionary, but there already is a page there titled "Transwiki:List of fan fiction terms." Therefore, I would recommend merging any content from the list here on Wikipedia that is not yet incorporated into the Wiktionary page with it, then removing the content from Wikipedia and leaving a soft redirect to Wiktionary in its place. I believe the definitions belong somewhere, but Wikipedia itself appears not the best venue. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:12, 19 June 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) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleber Sonda[edit]

Cleber Sonda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 22:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 22:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom. Cheers! Feedintm (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not really any significant, third party sources, thus propably non-notable per WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4 if it applies, otherwise delete as he does not meet any of the relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unfortunately, CSD#G4 doesn't apply here, but this player still fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines. —BETTIA— ^talk 11:28, 16 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED superweapons[edit]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED superweapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This list violates our policy on coverage of fiction, as it is plot only coverage. The "superweapons" within Mobile Suit Gundam SEED is not an encyclopaedic topic as there is no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources, resulting it in failing the general notability guideline. Additionally, "superweapon" is a subjective term and it is difficult to determine whether any individual technology should belong on this list. Anthem 20:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The nominator has now been blocked by MuZemike as a sock of Caritas, see [4].

• delete as a violation of WP:NOT section "not an indiscriminate collection of information" subsection 1. This is entirely in-universe information, more suited to a fanwiki than an encyclopedia. There are no secondary sources at all, and no indication of any actual importance to anything outside the fictional universe. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Violates not an indiscriminate collection of information and fails notability. No independent and reliable sources provided. Edison (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep - no evidence of WP:BEFORE on part of nominator, and pending the result of the DRV for another Gundam Seed fictional items list. --Malkinann (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BEFORE is not policy. WP:BURDEN is, however. Reyk _YO! 23:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editing policy, specifically WP:HANDLE, was apparently not followed by the nominator. --Malkinann (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED. Redirects are cheep and editors can salvage any usable content in the future. Based on previous AfDs, its obvious that Anthem didn't attempt WP:BEFORE, particularly point 5. Consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article or proposing it be merged. —Farix (t | c) 01:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the name of this article is a completely implausible search term. Please assume good faith. --Anthem 07:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:V as no references are found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: What manner of procedure does Malkinann believe ought to have been done instead? (Let's leave aside the strong possibility that "Leave the article alone" would be the desired answer.) This is plainly in-universe information, extremely unlikely to have any out-of-universe reliable sourcing, and certainly lacking sourcing which discusses this particular subject in the "significant detail" required. Whatever result a DRV on another article has does not serve as an injunction on us coming to a decision on this one ... the more so in that the DRV was not proposed on the merits of the article - a decision DRV can't really make - but on whether the AfD was properly closed.  Ravenswing  06:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BEFORE: "Read the article and review its history to properly understand its topic. Some articles may have been harmed by vandalism or poor editing. Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered." "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." "Consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article or proposing it be merged". Those three parts of WP:BEFORE are of the most concern to me in this AFD. As the AFD I referred to was on a similar topic, and the sources presented there were disregarded (apparently without anyone voting to delete reading the sources), I regard the DRV as being pertinent to this AFD. --Malkinann (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: You know for a certain fact no one read the sources, or you presumed they didn't? That being said, neither the nom nor any other editor is under any onus to look at an article and come to the same conclusions as to its viability, appropriateness or fidelity to Wikipedia policies and guidelines as you do. It is not enough to claim - absent any real evidence of the same - that the nom didn't follow WP:BEFORE.

  Let's take the first sentence of your specific concern. For it to be at all valid, you would have to expect that substantive changes have been made in the article, with earlier versions having merits the current one lacks. A casual skip through the revision history shows, in fact, that the article has been largely unchanged throughout its six year history (and surprisingly so given the number of edits), with the biggest change being the removal of images.

  Let's take the second sentence. The nom says outright that "no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources" exist. No such sources are proffered in the article. No such sources have ever been proffered in the article. You do not, yourself, claim that any such sources exist, or have come up with any, and of course, you know that the onus is on the editor wishing to retain such material to provide them.

  The last part? I see no reason to assume the nom didn't consider it ... and reject it. I would have done so myself.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  17:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. A redirect is superfluous because it is an implausible search term. I note that the rudeness to the nominator in some of the comments above is troubling. Neutrality^talk 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Anthem of joy who initiated this and other Gundam related AfDs has been indefinitely blocked by MuZemike as a sockpuppet of Claritas,[5] who was indefinitely blocked after creating a series of disruptive AfDs in the Transformers franchise. —Farix (t | c) 17:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest letting this continue with all the good-faith editors contributing already. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Demonstrably the strong consensus is for the non-notability of this subject.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  02:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At a deletion review of a very closely related article [[6]] of a previous AfD on this article, many good references were presented. The individual items on a list do not have to be notable--in fact, if they were, they would normally be justified as separate articles. It's generally appropriate to keep lists like this from cluttering up the article, and their existence provides a good way for quickly redeleting any article on an individual weapon. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the sources that were presented there turned up to be promotional and "produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator", thus they can't be used to assess notability on Gundam-related topics, including this one.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So ... hold on. You're advocating that because "many good references" were supplied in another article - references that you don't attempt to claim have anything to do with this article - this one should automatically be found notable? That's your argument? Seriously?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  01:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete According to WP:GNG, the threshold for inclusion of a stand-alone article/list is the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", we can easily see that's not the case for this article since it doesn't even have a single source. The topic is thus both non-notable and unverifiable. Besides, the article in itself consists only in the in-universe descriptions of plot elements from a fictional work, thus violating WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WAF.
  Note: that the nominator is a sockpuppet doesn't magically solve these very serious content issues, which is why, in my opinion, his blocking shouldn't be used as an argument here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:42, 17 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements[edit]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This list violates our policy on coverage of fiction, as it is plot only coverage. Human enhancements within Mobile Suit Gundam SEED is not an encyclopaedic topic as there is no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources, resulting it in failing the general notability guideline. Anthem 19:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as a violation of WP:NOT section "not an indiscriminate collection of information" subsection 1. This is entirely in-universe information, more suited to a fanwiki than an encyclopedia. There are no secondary sources at all, and no indication of any actual importance to anything outside the fictional universe. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks independent and reliable sourcing, so fails WP:N. Also violates WP:NOT since it is an indiscriminate collection of information. Written in an "in universe style." Edison (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep - no evidence of WP:BEFORE on part of nominator, and pending the result of the DRV for another Gundam Seed fictional items list. --Malkinann (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED. Redirects are cheep and editors can salvage any usable content in the future. Based on previous AfDs, its obvious that Anthem didn't attempt WP:BEFORE, particularly point 5. Consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article or proposing it be merged. —Farix (t | c) 01:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do follow WP:BEFORE. The operative word in that quote is "useful", and I can't imagine anyone typing "List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements" into the search bar. --Anthem 07:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Who is going to type in List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements? The weapon names I can see as being possible redirects but not a whole list, Delete per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: What manner of procedure does Malkinann believe ought to have been done instead? (Let's leave aside the strong possibility that "Leave the article alone" would be the desired answer.) This is plainly in-universe information, extremely unlikely to have any out-of-universe reliable sourcing, and certainly lacking sourcing which discusses this particular subject in the "significant detail" required. Whatever result a DRV on another article has does not serve as an injunction on us coming to a decision on this one ... the more so in that the DRV was not proposed on the merits of the article - a decision DRV can't really make - but on whether the AfD was properly closed. (might as well cut and paste ...)  Ravenswing  06:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BEFORE: "Read the article and review its history to properly understand its topic. Some articles may have been harmed by vandalism or poor editing. Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered." "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." "Consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article or proposing it be merged". Those three parts of WP:BEFORE are of the most concern to me in this AFD. As the AFD I referred to was on a similar topic, and the sources presented there were disregarded (apparently without anyone voting to delete reading the sources), I regard the DRV as being pertinent to this AFD. --Malkinann (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article was deleted because there was a consensus that those sources were terrible. --Anthem 10:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? That's why that AFD is now at DRV. --Malkinann (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The focus should be on this article, are there any reliable sources someone can find that can cover the content of the article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only one, Otona no Gundam got some mention of this, mainstream and analytical as required by deletionists. I cannot think of any other secondary sources right now, so I am also leaning towards a merge to main article, with source(s) stating the story have a background of conflict between natural human and designer babies. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 16:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: You know for a certain fact no one read the sources, or you presumed they didn't? That being said, neither the nom nor any other editor is under any onus to look at an article and come to the same conclusions as to its viability, appropriateness or fidelity to Wikipedia policies and guidelines as you do. It is not enough to claim - absent any real evidence of the same - that the nom didn't follow WP:BEFORE.

  Let's take the first sentence of your specific concern. For it to be at all valid, you would have to expect that substantive changes have been made in the article, with earlier versions having merits the current one lacks. A casual skip through the revision history shows, in fact, that the article has been largely unchanged throughout its six year history (and surprisingly so given the number of edits), with the biggest change being the removal of images. (Indeed, the vast majority of the edits seem to be made by fans of the series disagreeing with one another's interpretations.)

  Let's take the second sentence. The nom says outright that "no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources" exist. No such sources are proffered in the article. No such sources have ever been proffered in the article. You do not, yourself, claim that any such sources exist, or have come up with any, and of course, you know that the onus is on the editor wishing to retain such material to provide them.

  The last part? I see no reason to assume the nom didn't consider it ... and reject it. I would have done so myself.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  18:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Not a plausible search term. Neutrality^talk 23:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Anthem of joy who initiated this and other Gundam related AfDs has been indefinitely blocked by MuZemike as a sockpuppet of Claritas,[7] who was indefinitely blocked after creating a series of disruptive AfDs in the Transformers franchise. —Farix (t | c) 17:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Nonetheless, almost every editor responding in good faith has advocated the deletion of the article. Do you consider this AfD "disruptive," and if so, what makes it so?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  04:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the main Gundam SEED article. This really isn't given much attention in the show itself except as background information and thus it's general noteability to the wider world is questionable at best. Jtrainor (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again what reader is going to type in List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements? The search term with the wording is unlikely. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:27, 17 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freegold[edit]

Freegold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No notability demonstrated . All sources which use the word Freegold are from a single blogger. All other refs make no mention of Freegold but talk about related monetary issues. Looks like a particular blogger neologism and original research  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete an absolute mess of original research, terrible writing and non-notable concepts. I edited out the author's attempts to talk to other editors in the main body of the text itself, but left the "lack of sources" section intact because I'm not sure exactly what it was referring to. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I completely agree that the references cited do not validate the concept of freegold at all. Tashif (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from the author; The concept freegold is quite hard to understand, as explained in the article. Meaning the references are - to most people - found difficult to digest and understand, let alone if they are superficially scanned. Example: the works of Another, Foa and Fofoa combined (see article) are 10 years worth of high level macro economic and geopolitical writing, to fully explain freegold. That all may leave the impression the references are single sourced or found unverifiable. Another example to illustrate my point: who can actually read the balance sheet of one of the world's most important central banks? Everyone can read the numbers, but how many people can interpret the numbers, let alone reason what that means in a monetary sense in various economical conditions? On the discussion I do appreciate arguments to be specific. Rd2c (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not OR exactly, because the theory does exist outside Wikipedia, but only as the postings of anonymous bloggers, placing their own work on the web. We go by the sources, not the intrinsic merit of the theories, and these postings are a classic example of unreliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why would you delete it ?! The anonymous blogger was Ferdinand Lips, he passed away, and that is why he stopped writing. F.L. could not use his initials because he had too much influence in the creation of the Euro. If you want source : add the book : Gold Wars. (Gold Wars. The Battle Against Sound Money. As Seen From A Swiss Perspective) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.108.84 (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added ref, thanks. Rd2c (talk) 08:32, 15 June 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) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Moises[edit]

Elie Moises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL Oleola (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 01:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Cheers! Feedintm (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, simply being non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:27, 16 June 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. While I appreciate all editors' comments, and while I do agree that guidelines are only guidelines, I don't think that YouTube hits/Google hits help. Algorithmic search results, while useful, rarely prove notability; see here. m.o.p 13:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pit[edit]

Mr. Pit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a declined G4. Sources and content have improved over the last two years, but I remain unconvinced that the subject is notable. I was unable to locate significant, substantial coverage meeting the WP:GNG and would like the community to look over what sourcing is available in case I missed something. Dlohcierekim 18:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep − The subject seems notable given the fact that his area of music is not main stream. He has several releases with Armada Music, which is well known trance label based in the Netherlands. A quick search on Youtube brings up many hits. I'm confident that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good start. But do we have reliable sources giving significant coverage. Can we be sure of Armada meeting WP:Music? Dlohcierekim 13:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only necessary to meet one criteria from WP:MUSICBIO. Having released a record on a major label is enough to suggest notability. I get more than 3 million hits when I google "Armada music".

• Delete - no non-trivial, independent coverage has been presented; what is there are things like this or like this, which are meaningless in terms of sourcing for articles. That he's released a single with Armada is thus far irrelevant (see WP:GHITS for why the claimed importance of that label remains undemonstrated), and in any case, WP:MUSICBIO requires having released "two or more" albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels, and even then, the subject "may be" (not "is") notable. Mr. Pit has a long way to go before he reaches even that threshold. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't his record label independent? He's clearly influential in his area, e.g. take a look here. Also, he seems to have released four records with the label, not just one or two. Searching for him on Youtube brings up many hits including live recordings from large American dance events. This isn't some teen rock band playing out of their mum's garage. He's an international act. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the releases mentioned in the article are signed to some of the most notable Trance Music labels. Here is a source from the independent record label Spinnin Records showing an upcoming release by the subject. In addition, you could also check the DJ Mag review of one of the subject's track. Wkpdinfo (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ignored it the first time you mentioned it, but it bears repeating now that this encyclopedia is based on "reliable, published sources", and so Youtube searches have nothing to contribute to the discussion. If you want to argue that a corporate biography from his publisher constitutes evidence he passes one WP:MUSICBIO criterion, which would thus imply he may be notable, fine, but let's leave the Youtube searches out of the discussion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but they do. The guidelines are just that: guidelines. Apply the rule of common sense. The Youtube videos give evidence of his activities. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this encyclopedia is based on "reliable, published sources", so a Youtube search can never indicate notability or lack thereof. It's your right to dismiss WP:RS, but you're in a distinct minority in doing so, and consensus is against you. (You want to try citing one of those videos at WP:FAC and see if the article gets promoted?) Also, WP:V happens to be a policy, one that stresses at length how we should avoid "sources" of the nature you're touting. Indeed, you haven't even tried to point to a particular video as evidence of notability, but have merely made airy references to "Youtube searches". I'm surprised anyone should think that would have any contextual relevance in this discussion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop passing judgements about me and my motives. I am not dismissing WP:RS. I am suggesting that we suppliant it with common sense. You refuse to apply the rule of common sense and instead hide behind the guidelines. A classic case of WP:LAWYER. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop giving me orders, for a change, and stop seeing things that aren't there. Either we are a project based on reliable, published sources, or we admit whatever spamlinks and cruft Fly by Night may consider it's "common sense" to do so, and tarnish those who wish to uphold a higher standard as "lawyering", "hiding behind the guidelines" and "passing judgements". I choose the former. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the sweet irony. You order me to stop giving you orders. Sir, yes Sir. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep − All Mr. Pit Coldharbour Recordings releases are still under Armada Music whose sublabel it is. I'm also confident subject meets WP:MUSICBIO having work appeareances on notable compilation albums in his area of music, I also found these links Wkpdinfo (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)— Wkpdinfo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dlohcierekim 21:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim, that's a bit harsh. The account was only registered three days ago. Almost all new accounts do exactly that. New editors edit articles in subjects they know the most about before broadening their horizons. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe they're just here to self-promote, with no intention of actually contributing anything else to the project? - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if your point of view is neutral due to the fact you contributed significant on the deletion of the first version of this article. As mentioned in the debating article, the subject's works are featured on notable album compilations, which are separate featured as distinct Wikipedia articles, his work is reviewed by (at least) a notable electronic music magazine, those arguments should be enough for subject to meet WP:MUSICBIO, still according to that, failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Besides that, Google returns over 1.8 milion hits for Mr. Pit. As long as for this example, the reference is valid, the same website source should be considered notable for the subject of this article. Nevertheless, thinking about the article is self-promotion is not a neutral thinking but a strong reason to believe that is negativism. Wkpdinfo (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article's only response to previous comments on lack of independent sources: spamlinks and cruft. No, these o not show notability, just persistence, and a disregard for the spirit of our WP:RS policies. Not to mention the letter of our WP:MUSIC requirements. Dahn (talk) 07:36, 14 June 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 Nomination withdrawn. Hut 8.5 16:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin O'Brien[edit]

Martin O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BIO, unable to find significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. I was able to add two citations to the article but they do little more than verify his existence. PROD declined by someone who thought it deserved more review. Hut 8.5 17:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have added 8 citations from reliable sources; I don't understand why they have not been updated to the page when I search for it - have to look at revisions to see the now fully sourced page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.102.162 (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the citations you've provided don't constitute significant third-party coverage, but the reference from The Times is a lot more substantial, so I'm withdrawing this nomination. Hut 8.5 16:36, 12 June 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) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwelltown Thistle FC[edit]

Maxwelltown Thistle FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Amateur association football club that does not meet the notability requirements set out in WP:ORG or WP:FOOTYN. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, team has not competed at a high enough level to be considered notable. GiantSnowman 18:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete team hasn't competed at a high enough level to be considered notable.Zanoni (talk) 08:25, 16 June 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) 01:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Weaver[edit]

Paul Weaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 01:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. A couple of external links as references, but still no significant coverage found. No career history in fully professional leagues. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:37, 16 June 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) 01:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Wille[edit]

Dwight Wille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 01:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:35, 16 June 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. v/r - TP 03:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jannes Vansteenkiste[edit]

Jannes Vansteenkiste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks significant third party coverage, career doesn't include playing in a professional league, WP:NFOOTBALL. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:38, 14 June 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) 01:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Dhoest[edit]

Sven Dhoest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, non-notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. Also, lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:35, 16 June 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) 01:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Van Belle[edit]

Nick Van Belle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, simply non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALLZanoni (talk) 08:34, 16 June 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) 01:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zinho Gano[edit]

Zinho Gano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG as non-notable footballer. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:34, 16 June 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) 01:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy De Jonghe[edit]

Jimmy De Jonghe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:33, 16 June 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) 01:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Meunier[edit]

Thomas Meunier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALLZanoni (talk) 08:33, 16 June 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) 01:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fries Deschilder[edit]

Fries Deschilder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. Karma-AH (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - player fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:33, 16 June 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) 01:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elfar Freyr Helgason[edit]

Elfar Freyr Helgason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully por league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Icelandic top league which is not fully pro and therefore does not grant notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom, per above, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG as simply non-notable footballer. Seemingly no career history in fully professional leagues. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:54, 14 June 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. v/r - TP 16:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art of War 3[edit]

Art of War 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Routine sports coverage. Event involved some notable fighters, but was held by a non-notable (now defunct) promotion. Page contents already appear on the AOW page, so merging is not necessary if promotion page is retained. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete This article just reports the results of a an event and mere results are not notable. Non notable event from a defunct and lower echelon promotion. Jakejr (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article just reports the results of a an event and mere results are not notable. It is a event from a defunct organization with little in the way of content, other than posting the results. It doesn't meet basic criteria to be notable, and the one source for the article is the organizations website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.22.202 (talk) 06:47, 18 June 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) 01:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 Bishop's Stortford F.C. season[edit]

2010–11 Bishop's Stortford F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Rather funny one, all the info basically copied from the article 2011–12 Arsenal F.C. season, also it was agreed that clubs below hte Conference National are deemed not notable enough for a season article. LiamTaylor 15:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the nonsense which was copy & pasted from the Arsenal article has been removed now, leaving pretty much nothing of worth. This article fails WP:GNG, and also goes against consensus at WP:FOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 16:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 16:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Bishop's Stortford do not play at a high enough level to merit season articles. Not to mention the articles is completely unreferenced and has almost no content. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Goes against consensus WP:FOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:49, 11 June 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) 01:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Mandarin Singapore[edit]

Marina Mandarin Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Apparent non-notable building, no assertions or proof of notability in article. Per WP:GNG there is apparently no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" since the single cited reference is to the building's entry in the Emporis database. Shearonink (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As I have already mentioned in the edit history: "A building of this size and height can easily be the tallest in smaller cities. Hardly a non-notable building, and the article is not a business-directory in any way." The building was featured as one of the structures of the multi-block complex called Marina Square in a major exhibition and a corresponding book[8] on significant Singaporean architecture by the Urban Redevelopment Authority. To call this long-standing landmark a "non-notable building" is completely ludicrous, for even if you are going to insist it mainly appears in thousands of travel-related sites (as it rightfully should anyway), no one can possibly ignore this massive high-rise structure when visiting Marina Bay, Singapore! Pictures speak a thousand words, so look at the first picture in this doc to get an idea of its physical prominence[9]. I am not sure how someone who do not even know which side Singaporeans drive on[10] could insist on coming to the conclusion that this is an "apparent non-notable building"?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No need to question the nominator's knowledgeability (it was an innocent mistake). A simple Google image search will tell you the building is not a little compound in the middle of nowhere. I found some coverage of it here (will add that to the article later). There are numerous articles in Wikipedia far less deserving of being here than a pretty prominent building in the middle of a pretty important city. Why pick this fight? - Yk³ talk · contrib 03:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looks like it easily meets WP:GNG and so on. I added a couple sources to the article, it has a potential for much more though. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:48, 14 June 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) 01:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Tunnicliffe[edit]

Ryan Tunnicliffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD; this is a non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage", as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to play in a fully-professional league. GiantSnowman 14:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 16:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 16:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. – PeeJay 19:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not yet notable. Those arguing it's inevitable he will be, please see this and consider what would happen if he had a silly accident tomorrow that ended his chances of ever playing professional sport. As soon as he plays 1 second of notable football, he's notable. Until then... he's not yet notable. --Dweller (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:32, 16 June 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. hoax -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shubham chaturvedi[edit]

Shubham chaturvedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Has been nuked before... let's discuss this: real? hoax? notable? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Blatant hoax copied by a sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shubham7872891640) from Ray_William_Johnson. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:58, 11 June 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. v/r - TP 15:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dušan Kenić[edit]

Dušan Kenić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Without fully pro appearances or significant coverage, he fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 June 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. v/r - TP 22:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Dietrich[edit]

Arthur Dietrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete - there are not reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this fictional character. There are certainly sources that mention the character and that establish the existence of the character but existence is not notability. Article amounts to a description of the character's appearance in the television series, a glorified plot description in violation of WP:PLOT. PROD removed with no explanation and link to an obituary for the actor who played the character added, but the obituary is of course about the actor and not the character. Harley Hudson (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A straightforward Google Books search shows that this character has been referenced by multiple independent sources--sometimes just in an encyclopedia, other times commenting more extensively on the character. The GNG is met, the article needs to be improved to incorporate such sources. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks significant coverage independent of the actor who played the character. --Anthem 16:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC) - Please discount any comments by Anthem of Joy, he's a sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [11]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - GNG is met.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The fictional character does not meet general notability guideline and the article is mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article only provides one reference to a primary source, an interview with the actor that portrayed the character, Steve Landesberg, but doesn't show that the rest of content was no extracted with original research by synthesis. Furthermore, a search engine test does not show evidence that the fictional character is covered in reliable third-party sources. All that shows up are unreliable sources or trivial mentions in tertiary sources, but there is no evidence that secondary sources make analytic or evaluative claims for the fictional character, so there is no objective evidence of notability. With no evidence of presumed notability and since the article falls into what Wikipedia is not because it doesn't provide reception and significance for the fictional character, I don't see a good reason to keep the article around. Jfgslo (talk) 01:04, 16 June 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) 01:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teeboy Kamara[edit]

Teeboy Kamara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. Not notable, fails WP:NSOCCER, has not played at a fully professional or senior international level. WWGB (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable footballer. Keb25 (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails WP:NSOCCER. LibStar (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable youth footballer per WP:NSPORT. No indication he meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - he's also a minor, so a fairly high standard of notability is needed to justify an article, and that clearly isn't the case (at the moment at least). Nick-D (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A rather obvious case, clear fail at WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:26, 16 June 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. v/r - TP 15:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Pastorino[edit]

Antonio Pastorino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NTENNIS. Has not played in a Challenger, forget won one, or been in an ATP World Tour match. Sellyme^Talk 04:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Meets no wikipedia tennis guideline for notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - His match record shows no indication of him meeting any of the criteria for WP:NTENNIS. News coverage consists of match results and no significant coverage about him that I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When I searched online for anything mentioning him, nothing panned out. He doesn't even have a formal official website. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:44, 16 June 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 WITHDRAWN. WWGB (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese contemporary art[edit]

Portuguese contemporary art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. Non-notable concept, no reliable independent references. Contested prod, seems to be a promotion for a particular gallery. WWGB (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Non-notable concept?" Did you follow WP:BEFORE, or just base this AFD off of the current state of the article? We should seriously doubt there is no notable contemporary art, notable contemporary art institutions, or notable contemporary artists in any European or First World nation. Some sources found from a quick English search: [12], [13], [14]. And I doubt there are no newspapers or magazines in Portugal reporting on its art. See also pt:Arte contemporânea em Portugal; though unsourced at present, we should have someone try to translate that for en: at least as a starting point for developing a sourced article. postdlf (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve There is a clear place for an article on contemporary art in Portugal. A Google search turns up 2 catalogue books on the topic: "Contemporary art from Portugal: 5.December 2002 - 14 March 2003" (ISBN 9291813354), "Contemporary art from Portugal: works from the collection of the Luso-American Development Foundation, Embassy of Portugal--Chancery : Washington D.C., July to December 2007" (ISBN 9728654251). This article was created yesterday morning by a new user; there's an opportunity to assist towards a decent article rather than delete. AllyD (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Absurd, arguably racist nomination. Clearly a basic part of wikipedia's coverage of Portuguese art. Alex Middleton (talk) 23:42, 12 June 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) 01:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Stefanov[edit]

Georgi Stefanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, and is completely unreferenced. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-notable player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Having never played in a fully pro league, and without significant coverage, he fails both WP:NSPORT, and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, clearly non-notable footballer per WP:NFOOTBALL. Not really any reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete several sources now but none which are reliable sources. The team he plays for PFC Botev Plovdiv, is below what is required in Bulgaria to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:10, 16 June 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) 01:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of the United States[edit]

Prime Minister of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is mostly original synthesis. As the article points out, there is no prime minister of the US, and the title has been occasionally used satirically, or incorrectly by foreigners. While there are several references showing individuals being referred to or referring to themselves by this title, there is no significant coverage of the title itself in reliable sources, leading to the overall concept of this article failing the general notability guideline. Anthem 11:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - how did this survive previous deletion debates? There is no Prime Minister of the United States and the occasional usage or misusage of the terms a handful of times over the course of more than two centuries of American history doesn't warrant inclusion. Harley Hudson (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is full of original research, synthesis and unreferenced claims. The one inline reference (that Obama was once called the Prime Minister by a foreign newspaper, is broken as are some of the external links. The occasional joking reference to Dick Cheney or some other functionary as a "Prime Minister" does not justify an encyclopedia article about a nonexistent office. Fails notability and verifiability. Edison (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is a ton of work that remains to be done in the field of US history on Wikipedia. Clearly this page is the product of a talented content creator. This is an original essay, though, and that's a nunt-uh... Nobody is going to be searching this phrase anyway, it's a non-starter. So, kudos for the effort and here's hoping the creator dusts themselves off and goes on to great things at Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 20-Mule-Team Delete: Well ... this survived the VfD in 2003 because the process, at the time, was crap, and all manner of turgid rationales were given equal time in what was, then, nothing more than a head count.

  It survived the AfD in 2008 because the closing nom dropped the ball, IMHO, and gave such stellar rationales such as "article has some structure and content, example has hundreds of google hits. There are far more unnotable topics around at WP," "Most countries in the world have a prime minister," "The material is interesting," "Office obviously doesn't exist but term is notable" equal weight with the obvious retorts that this is a non-existent office for which not a single damn source is proffered, reliable or otherwise.

  Of course, no sources exist which might discuss the subject in the "significant detail" required, and and the article is chockful of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAPBOX violations ... if it avoids WP:BULLSHIT outright, which I don't believe it does. Keeping this once was a matter of blindness. Keeping it twice was a travesty. Keeping it again would be insanity.  Ravenswing  06:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need an article for an ironic turn of phrase. In this case, even worse, the turn of phrase is not particularly common, nor is the article sourced. If someone wanted to do OR on it, then an outlet outside Wiki would be better.TCO (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although there is some interesting information here I agree its mostly original research and subjective analysis. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as it only serves to confuse. We don't have President of Canada, President of the United Kingdom, President of Australia etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: Appears to be a mashup of largely unrelated facts. However, it probably should be redirected to something Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Occasional mentions of the term as a sort of neologism does not a Wikipedia article make. First Light (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. & others, as well as WP:OR & WP:SYNTH. It's an essay, not an encyclopedic article.--JayJasper (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [15]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:05, 15 June 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. Despite the overabundance of keep !votes, I've had to carefully read this AfD several times and review each editor. Many editors have arrived here due to a "Call for help". Reading the keeps, it appears many use the WP:ILIKEIT, WP:GHITS, or WP:CRYSTALBALL type rationale. The sources provided by the keeps contain blogs, forums, primary sources, or minor self-published Amiga "news" sites. The delete rationale has been supported by policy. The article fails WP:GNG. Specifically, there are no reliable sources that are independant of the subject. I would like to remind editors not to try to WP:CANVASS support from off-wiki and to support their rationale with policy. v/r - TP 23:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natami[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

Natami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article does not meet WP:N. It has two references to Natami's vendor, which cannot evidence notability as they are not independent of the subject and its creator. The further reading section has a link to a personal website, which is does not meet WP:RS. Google Web returns 373 results for "Natami" AND Amiga -wiki -wikipedia -blog -forum; and limiting the results to English, there are 299. Most of the results appear to be irrelevant (they are Wikipedia mirrors or about something else) and the relevant results do not meet WP:RS. Rilak (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think this article is notable enough, only that it is missing a few 3rd-party references. I just added info about the MX boards + a reference, I might add more references later on. --Marko75 (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference added is a forum discussion. It is not a reliable source per WP:RS and therefore is not evidence of notability. Rilak (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough regarding that ref. I've now added the quote with Dave Haynie mentioned below, I might add yet more if good refs emerges. --Marko75 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A forum discussion is not WP:RS and therefore has no weight when it comes to notability. It is irrelevant that Dave Haynie is claimed to have participated in the forum discussion. Rilak (talk)

• Keep: The Natami mainboard, in its various guises has been an integral part, not only of the Amiga scene, but also in the general retro computing landscape. Anyone reading through the internet about the Amiga and home brew retro computers will certainly come across the name 'Natami', and the Wikipedia page will ensure correct, factual information is offered when the reader searches for it. I have reviewed the article before editing this page, and I find no fault with it, as at today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.70.189 (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga fansites and other venues already have information about the Natami. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where the standard for inclusion is whether the topic is encyclopedic and whether it is notable or not. Arguing that the article should be kept so that people can find information about it is not an argument against the reason the article is here at AfD, which is Natami's lack of WP:N. Rilak (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While there might not be that much references, since product is not done yet, and community talking about natami is small, it definetily is notable enough. Many Amigans have said in Forums that this is only new Amiga they are intrested in. Also Dave Haynie (one of the original Commodore techie guys behind some of the original Amigas) have also said that from current new amigas (Pegasos, X1000, Sam, Natami), Natami is only one having true Amiga spirit in it, and in his opinion is most interesting of them all (later edit: [16]). There are lots of talk among Amigans on Amiga forums about Natami, also Amiga Future (print Amiga magazine) have had several times space for Natami news and stuff. Although notable only for a small group (at max 10s of thousands), it definetily is notable. --Bugala (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the subject has little coverage because it is not yet available is questionable given the fact the article is quite detailed. That means the information is out there, but remains unnoticed by reliable publications, suggesting the lack of notability. Regarding what Amiga fans are saying in forums, it is irrelevant to the question of notability, since it is not coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. What David Haynie is alleged to have said about Natami is irrelevant, unless it can be verified. The coverage in Amiga Future could evidence notability, but unless the necessary details are provided so that other editors can assess the coverage, the statement that there is coverage is just an assertion. Rilak (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here is some of the coverage from Amiga Future [17]. The project has also had extensive news and article coverage on Amiga sites and webmags such as PPA.pl, Amiga-Impact, Obligement, Safir, Amiga.org, Amigaworld and several other sites. I can dig up further links if you require it. I would judge the notability of the Natami as equal to several other FPGA console or home computer clones having Wikipedia articles, such as FireBee/Atari Coldfire Project [18], Minimig [19] or 1chipMSX [20]. See also the main Wikipedia category page for these types of projects: [21]. Most of of your criticism (sole sources are primary sources or forum posts/blog posts) also apply to many of these pages, but I do not think that is reason enough for marking them for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.240.137 (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of Amiga Future is questionable. Who publishes it? Why does it appear to not have an ISSN? Why does it not appear in the catalogs of major libraries? Regarding notability, it is determined by the amount of coverage a subject receives in reliable and independent secondary sources. It is irrelevant whether you consider it to be notable. The fact that there are articles on Wikipedia at present that are similar to Natami is also irrelevant, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rilak (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're grasping at straws. The website has an impressum as required by German law. This is accessible on every page of the site in the sidebar. Here it is: [22]. It lists the company and tax identification numbers of the publisher, as well as the people involved in the creation of the magazine. It is not in the catalogs of major libraries because it is a small specialist computer magazine - I've known a ton of niche magazines that are definitive for their niches that are still not carried by the vast majority of major libraries. An ISSN is no indication of reliability, but in this case an indication of the niche nature of it - an ISSN would not confer them any advantages. You keep moving the goalposts, and seem curiously passionate about getting rid of this article. Anyway, here is another link for you to complain about: [23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be rude. I was requesting additional information about the magazine for the benefit of everyone in this discussion; information that could support the claim that Amiga Future is a reliable source just as easily as it could support the claim that it is not. Surely you don't think that just because it is a magazine that it therefore must meet WP:RS? I am being through and I think that it's relevant to the discussion.

Now, you say that having an ISSN is no indication of reliability. You're right. But you mistakenly assume that I thought so. An ISSN infers no such thing; every junk magazine has an ISSN, or at least so in my region. I also observe that plenty of other magazines from all over the world have ISSNs. So if the very worst of magazines have an ISSN, and one does not, is it not reasonable to question its reliability?

Regarding the book in the ACM Digital Library, it is most interesting. ACM DL says the full title is: Amiga: History of the Amiga, Amiga models and variants, AmigaOS 4, Emulation on the Amiga, Amiga software, Amiga games, Aminet, AROS Research Operating ... Hold-And-Modify, Minimig, MorphOS, Natami.[24] What is unusual about it? It's a bit long for a book title is it not? Let's look a bit deeper. Its ISBNs are 6130264240 and 9786130264246. Now what do we get when we search Google Books for these ISBNs? This is what we get. Notice that it says that the book is published by VDM Publishing House Ltd.? What is VDM Publishing? It is a vanity press. It has no editorial review, no peer review, and worse, it is a republisher of Wikipedia content. The question is now, is the said book in question just copied Wikipedia articles? Let's look at the evidence: Look at the previous link, it has a description of what that book is about. Now look at [25], the last revision of the Amiga article of 2009, which is the year the book in question was published. Notice any similarities between the lede the article and the book's description? It's just like Wikipedia isn't it? Let's look at what the alleged authors have also written: "Frederic+P+Miller" "Agnes+F+Vandome" "John+McBrewster". These authors have written about a diverse range of subjects, no? A bit suspicious is it not? Could it be that they are not real authors, but creations of VDM Publishing? The answer is yes, and this fact is well known amongst Wikipedians: Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#VDM_Publishing_House. Now the question is, will you portray this as Natami hate? Rilak (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think just anything would qualify. I got a bit exasperated because between this and your other comments, it seemed to me that you were trying very hard to find reasons to delete, and the link to the impressum is in the sidebar of the pages previously linked to. As a long time reader of Amiga Future, it is also annoying to see it's reliability questioned, as while it most definitively is a small niche magazine it's consistently seemed fair and balanced within its subject area to me (though I'm not expecting you to take my word for it).

If the very worst magazines have ISSN's, how does it follows that the lack of one makes it reasonable to question reliability? A quick search shows that's all that is needed in Germany is to fill in a form. Given that this seems to give some illusion of reliability with people like you, despite the fact that you claim that you don't see it as an indicator of reliability, would it not be more reasonable to assume that all the unreliable, questionable magazines would be extra concerned about obtaining one?

No, I won't because that detective work is perfectly reasonable, and good catch. If all your objections were based on stuff like this, I don't think anyone would have any problems with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you consider Deutsche Nationalbibliothek as "major library" [26] :-) --Pavlor (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the German National Library is a major library. Admittedly, my initial searches failed to find it. Thanks for pointing that out. Rilak (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not notable, it's one of millions of electronics projects that hasn't even been completed. Wikipedia is not a place for Amiga (or any other kind of) evangelism. Koft (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It isn't even in manufacture and has demonstrated no notability.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While the article does need some work the subject I think it's notable. Zac67 (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not establish notability per WP:ILIKEIT. Rilak (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keep its available to developers now and consumers by the end of the year of 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.41.169 (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The availability of the product is irrelevant to its notability. Notability is solely dependent of the amount of coverage a subject has received in independent, reliable secondary sources per WP:N. An unreleased product can be notable and a released product not notable. It could be argued that if a product is likely to become notable when released, since more information will be available, then the benefit of the doubt should be given, but this is not the case since the article is already detailed. The information is all out there, but no publication has deemed it worthy of covering. Rilak (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's not complete, but it's approximately as far along as the X1000, which nobody seems to be contesting the notability of. Wikipedia might not be "a place for Amiga evangelism," but this article is not at all evangelistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commodorejohn (talk • contribs) 00:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that nobody is contesting the notability of the X1000, a similar product, is irrelevant to this discussion. The notability of Natami (or the lack of) exists independently of the X1000. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rilak (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's notable enough to have been mentioned in micro mart magazine several times in the past year alone. Deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.35.60 (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only this year, but as far back as Micro Mart issue 31 March 26th 2008. Micro Mart as a major UK computer mag having regular coverage of the project is a strong argument for this article being notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.240.137 (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If Micro Mart has been covering the project regularly (in its print edition, in articles rather than adverts and/or online by its editorial staff rather than its readers) and the coverage has been providing substantive information about Natami (and doing more than simply reproducing Natami press releases), then that may well establish notability - if at least some of the information that Micro Mart has been providing is added to the article and sourced back to Micro Mart. I'm not in a position to do this as I don't have copies of Micro Mart - anyone who does, please edit the article. PWilkinson (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've not seen such a complete and well thought out fan based extension to the hardware of any computing platform before Natami. Sure, mini versions of some retro machines have been made (The C64 in a joystick for example) and FPGA based remakes, but to extend the hardware in the way the Natami team is doing, that's truly remarkable and beyond a doubt is notable. To do so for the love of it is a demonstration of the sheer devotion the Amiga platform inspires too, notable in the context of the social impact computing platforms can have upon individuals, or is sociology and psychology not covered by wikipedia. A notable enough product for sure, I'm quite frankly shocked that anyone would see it otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.188.201 (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of a product, how remarkable it is, and what its fans think of it are not criteria for meeting WP:N. Rilak (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's a hobby project outside the scope of Wikipedia. That being said, I'm going to buy one when and if they are available.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.61.58.235 (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Natami is interesting project in both historical and technological sense - it aims to recreate and improve hardware concepts of one of the most popular computers of the 80s/90s. None of the presented arguments are strong enough to justify deletion.--Pavlor (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the issue is WP:N, it is WP:ITSINTERESTING that is not strong enough to justify inclusion. Rilak (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right point. However I can offer other reason for keep. Progress of the Natami project is monitored in global scale: eg. news sites in the Czech Republic [27] [28], Germany [29], Hungary [30], Poland [31] and of course international sites [32], I can also cite magazine Amiga Future (n. 73, May 2011) [33] --Pavlor (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at these sites, it is questionable as to whether they are reliable sources or not. What is a "news site"? Is it any site that offers news? If it is, then yes, these are news sites, just like unreliable self-published sources such as blogs. But if "news site" means Ars Technica, CNet News, or the site of a newspaper or a news magazine, then these sites are not news sites. Regarding amigaportal.cz, the "About This Site" page claims that the site was created by fans. Regarding powerpc.lukysoft.cz, it's an AmigaOS user group. Regarding amiga-news.de, it appears to says nothing about itself. Regarding retrocomputer.tux.hu, it looks like a blog. Regarding ppa.pl, its "About Us" page claims that it is a portal serving Amiga users, and that it publishes what appears to be a fanzine (since its staff does not appear to publish it professionally; as in paid as a job). Regarding amigaworld.net, [34] says it is a community portal. None of these sites look like reliable sources. Amiga Future is the only actual magazine, but its reliability is still unknown. Rilak (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the pile-on from two individuals below attacking and attempting to divert attention away from my own comments about Amiga Future, it is a published magazine with an editorial staff, which makes it a clear reliable source. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Retried on google search: "natami" gives 102000 results, "Natami" AND Amiga -wiki -wikipedia -blog -forum lists 15700 results, limited to English still 5980. Quite notable for me. The Natami Project itself is one of the first projects trying to enhance the Amiga hardwarewise. One might argue whether Amiga itself is still notable, but since it is, Natami should be too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.101.148 (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why there are so many results is that the first page of results always shows an inflated number of results. To get the true number, the easiest way is to set Google to return 100 results per page, redo the search, and click on page ten. Note this omits duplicates. Rilak (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Tag me as SPA. The fact that I don't have a wikipedia account shouldn't autmatically qualify me as SPA. I made a lot of contributions in the past, and will do so in the future, without registration. For this very AfD debate I just questioned the numbers from the the topic starter and posted the results [35] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.101.148 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you coming here on an anon IP address, for which no other edits have ever been recorded, is precisely the definition of SPA ... the more so in that in our experience, the odds that an anon IP just happens to stumble across an AfD discussion as its very first edit are astonishingly low. That being said, someone heretofore familiar with Wikipedia - however anonymously - would know that Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not count as "notable", for the sake of retaining articles, mere Google hits.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  08:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Despite the tidal wave of SPAs (which, of course, are coming here because people are urging them on an Amiga bulletin board in multiple topics to do so [36] [37]), this AfD can only be decided on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That a handful of remaining Amiga fanboys are excited about this is all very well and good, but in order to sustain a Wikipedia article, this must be covered in "significant detail" in reliable, independent, third-party sources. Could the fanboys cite any articles in mainstream media, newspapers, print magazines or coverage on TV or radio news programs? I wouldn't hold my breath. There is only one Google News hit in English [38], a blog post which gives this project a passing mention alone.  Ravenswing  07:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "fanboys" already mentioned regular coverage in Micro Mart Magazine, a popular UK computer magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.240.137 (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Odd, then, that a search for "Natami" on Micro Mart Magazine's website turns up zero hits. [39] For a magazine which is described as the only one in the UK still reporting on the Amiga, that's rather a startling result, don't you think?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If you're really so badly versed in how magazines operate to automatically assume that every product mentioned or described in print in a magazine will automatically show up on their web site, maybe you ought to stay out of the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Topic is discussed on every major Amiga website, and a web search [40] gives thousands of results even after filtering away those Amiga websites; topic is clearly notable. Various coverage: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] Leffmann (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are reasons why blogs don't generally count as reliable sources. As I asked before, can you cite any articles on the subject in mainstream media, newspapers, print magazines or coverage on TV or radio news programs?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  17:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is an excellent way for Wikipedia to become a total dinosaur, when you try to ignore primary sources and interviews with the people involved in a project in an environment where more and more information is going online-only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Micro Mart Magazine. I should point out that magazines do not give out the entire content on their website. That is why you haven't gotten a hit searching it. If you really, really want to see proof, contact Sven Harvey, the writer of the Amiga Mart column. I'm sure he'll be happy to oblige. 82.42.35.60 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:I would not count on Micro Mart column. It covers every possible (and impossible) event in Amiga land. Could you please provide issue and page number and maybe some quote from his Micro Mart Magazine column? Or is it just hearsay? Xorxos (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to Amiga#Amiga hardware clones. At the very least, the article needs tons of cleanup. All the "specs" must be removed, since they are cut-n-paste from the vendor, and thus either advertising or copyright violations. Probably worth one or two sentences in the main article to summarize. That is, worth mentioning, but not with an entire stand-alone article if not independently notable. W Nowicki (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A merge may constitute WP:UNDUE. It is trivial for an electronics or a computer engineer to design a clone of a 1980s home computer. With such a low threshold to making an Amiga clone, is every clone worthy of a mention on Wikipedia? I think not. Rilak (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It is trivial for an electronics or a computer engineer to design a clone of a 1980s home computer." What is your source for this statement? If you've ever done this sort of design work you would know that this is not true at all. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FPGA clones are relatively easy compared to full custom design. Rilak (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, only if we are talking about a CPU implementation. An entire board design isn't a FPGA-based CPU. Again, what is your source? This interview makes it pretty clear that a lot of developer time has gone into this project. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not just a CPU. But it is the CPU that is the most complex part of a design. And so what if lots of time went into it? What has the amount of effort got to do with anything? Are you are arguing that just because someone has spent lots of effort and time doing something, then that person, their activity, or thing should be rewarded with a mention in Wikipedia? Rilak (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Based on your statements so far, you've clearly not done this sort of design work.

"What has the amount of effort got to do with anything?" The amount of effort is being discussed here because you attempted to downplay the amount of development time which has apparently gone into this particular project.

"Are you are arguing that just because someone has spent lots of effort and time doing something, then that person, their activity, or thing should be rewarded with a mention in Wikipedia?" Oh you should know better than to try to put words in my mouth in an attempt to discredit me... The amount of interest people outside of Wikipedia seem to have in this project is important. It shows that this project is important to the larger Amiga community and is worth covering in a halfway decent fashion here on Wikipedia. I suspect we will eventually begin to see coverage given to this project in computer books (the publication process is very slow) such as what happened with a particular Commodore 64 reimplementation. On a related note, can you name another computer platform as old as the Amiga which still has the large userbase that the Amiga has? --Tothwolf (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From your impassioned views on the worthiness of the Natami (none of which are relevant to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines), I see what you did. You've taken my statement completely out of context and misconstrued it into "Rilak has something against the Natami". This is what I said: "A merge may constitute WP:UNDUE. It is trivial for an electronics or a computer engineer to design a clone of a 1980s home computer. With such a low threshold to making an Amiga clone, is every clone worthy of a mention on Wikipedia? I think not."[47] Does the first sentence say that a merge is not appropriate? No, it says that it might not be appropriate. Regarding the second sentence, "home computer" != Natami. Regarding the third sentence, "Amiga clone" != Natami. Also in the third sentence, I asked whether every clone deserved a mention in Wikipedia, and I expressed my opinion that not every clone does, which does mean that Natami is necessarily one of those clones. So essentially, I was pushing for more consideration into the appropriateness of merging in the face of the often-stated, but sometimes poorly considered merge option. Rilak (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"From your impassioned views on the worthiness of the Natami [...]" Sorry, but no, I'm not currently that interested in this subject, so your accusations are misplaced. Quite frankly, I'm actually much more interested in why you seem to dislike this subject so much. I find your view that NatAmi (apparently, the article is misnamed) is undue weight and should not have any sort of coverage here on Wikipedia at all quite curious. Your view seems to be quite flawed given the apparent popularity of this project within the Amiga community.

As for your view of "It is trivial for an electronics or a computer engineer to design a clone of a 1980s home computer." ...you still keep dodging and refusing provide a source for your statement. This leads to the natural conclusion that you simply made it up.

Egads mate, put on some clothes! --Tothwolf (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Yes, the Amiga is a notable article, and one can argue that by extension so is NatAmi. However, there is too little verifiable information outside the project for the NatAmi article to stand on it´s own. However, like it´s been pointed out it´s important info both from a "post-Amiga" point of view, and retro scene/homebrew point of view. Deleting this article will seem both random and strangely motivated in that light. Arnljot76 (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga is notable, Natami is an Amiga clone, therefore Natami is notable? No, absolutely not, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Rilak (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Amiga. Otherwise not notable and should be deleted. Yworo (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As for sources mentioned above, this post by Dave Haynie is reliable and may be quoted in the article (just as we do with other experts in their field). This review with one of the developers is also reliable for facts about NatAmi.

  The issue here isn't that we don't have any reliable sources for the purposes of verifiability. The sole issue seems to be that NatAmi has not yet been covered in Amiga-related books which are indexed by Google Books (which tends to lead to FUTON bias). That said, given the Amiga community's interest in NatAmi, it certainly deserves some form of decent coverage here on Wikipedia, be it a standalone article or merged as part of Amiga#Amiga hardware clones (or elsewhere).

  The main question which comes to mind for me at least (and should be the question others ask as well), is how would the deletion of verifiable information which is integral to our coverage of Amiga help improve Wikipedia? In this specific case, I would be tempted to cite our ignore all rules policy in response to the notability guideline argument because it is apparent that NatAmi is important to the coverage of Amiga and will eventually be covered in published works. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In reviewing this review in Amiga Future ([48] [49]) linked above, it looks like Wikipedia's notability guideline isn't a barrier either. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RS lately? No forum post is ever reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Sorry. The expert exception only applies to sites published and maintained by the expert, such as their own blog. Material in forums and blogs which do not belong to the expert are still not considered reliable. Yworo (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet posts, forum posts, emails from email lists, etc from experts in their field may be used as a reliable source here on Wikipedia (WP:SPS). You already know this because we've done this with quotes from Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, Larry Wall, and many many others. Regardless, this review in Amiga Future mentioned above is reliable [50] (despite the novel use of phpBB for content aggregation). --Tothwolf (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, they have to be self-published, i.e. the expert must be the publisher as well as the author of the content. That's implicit in the concept of "self-published sources". As for Linus Torvalds, etc., I have never ever used email, forums, or any other such unreliable sources, though perhaps you have. Nearly everything important can be found in reliable sources. I disagree with the use of such sources on Linux and related articles. Any use of such sources should be replaced with reliable sources. However, choosing ones battles is an important concept and I simply haven't chosen to pursue correcting this issue on articles for which the subject is obviously notable. This subject, on the other hand, simply does not have enough mainstream reliable sources to establish notability. One interview in Amiga Future is IMO not adequate to meet even the general notability guideline. "Multiple sources are generally expected." Yworo (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're misquoting WP:SPS, Tothwolf. "[S]self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." Such sources are only acceptable under the condition Yworo cites, and the "experts" must themselves be the subject of multiple, third-party reliable sources. That being said, unless you're suggesting that these particular bloggers qualify - and if so, kindly supply the evidence that they do - this is nothing but a smokescreen.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : For me the very first line of the article says a lot "NatAmi (short for Native Amiga, is an unreleased Amiga clone motherboard" in that until it actually gets released it is unlikely to get the significant coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate notability. WP is an encyclopaedia, it is not a forum for collating fancruft. I see no bar to re-creation once it has gone on sale and it has received significant coverage. Mtking (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As a long time Amiga & PC user, I believe the entry regarding the Natami here is the most concise there is, despite the existence of Amiga forums. I often refer to this page for new information regarding the project. Therefore I nominate to keep it. --Middleman_77 (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. Rilak (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A clone of such a important computer console should be worth saving, but I have to admit to finding it hard to find usable material, will nominate for rescue and keep looking. VERTott 09:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. VERTott 09:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unremarkable, non-notable hobby project, supported only by a primary source and a user forum. Standard WP:NOTADVERTISING. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Attention: Enhanced Article I enhanced the article about Natami. I wikifikied more the article by adding an infobox, and better improving the article itself by creating an History section and a Philosophy section, inscribing natami in the vaste phenomenon of homebbrew computing. Also I improved notability as I found an article about it on Obligement that is a very reliable Amiga indipendent site which has an high reputation for being indipendent and objective into Amiga Community. Again I found a major visibility article, an intersting discussion into Appunti Digitali very well known italian technology, computing science discussion and blog maintained by engineers and computer scientists. Appunti Digitali (read the full discussion about Natami at this link).

About those who consider Natami an hobby project. Yes! it is an hobby project, just as like Altair 8800 and Apple I. I added in the articles references to modern homebrew computing systems and inscribing Natami in the modern phenomenon of homebrew computing: See also Minimig that was born from an hobby project and then hit the market thanks to italian hardware developer ACube who produces also Sam440ep PowerPC motherboad on which runs AmigaOS (Minimig link at Acube). See also C-One, created as homebrew by Jeri Ellsworth which then also hit the market. See also Arduino multipurpose microcontroller, see also Pandora Open Source gamebox console. these all (included Natami) are a demonstration that the phenomenon of hobby computing is still alive and vital, and deserve an attention by Wikipedia as it is very interesting topic and capable of further growth of relevance and interest...

Because remember: Don't underestimate modern hobby projects computing. It is hobby projects computing that historically created the market of microcomputers and then lead the series of phenomena in computer market in the '80 (new processors, new architectures, new hardware and software houses, etc., etc., etc.,) that started the rampage in home computing. Computers spreaded first amongst amateurs thanks to hobby projects, and then computers was made available to anyone on this planet. It is also thanks to hobby projects and homebrew computers that was realized the techonological and social revolution that bring nowadays the presence of computers in almost any home in the nations of first and second world. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Raffa, you're not helping here. Instead you made it worse with your useless rant (Yet you made it at least look a bit better) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.119.50 (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well 87.79.119.50. I apologize. It is due to my poor english. As a native italian speaker, my statements could seem redundant, as I try to better explain some concepts. Unfortunately I got no sense of brevity. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits that are claimed to conclusively invalidate the premise of the nomination mostly consists of what looks like original research, personal reflection, and advocacy which just makes the article worse. The only parts of those edits relevant to this discussion is the addition of two references, http://obligement.free.fr/articles/natami_nouvel_amiga_classic.php and http://www.appuntidigitali.it/9907/native-amiga-natami-il-vero-erede-dellamiga/. The former is a webzine, and the claim that it is a reliable source is questionable since it does not appear to be produced by a paid professional staff and published by a media company, but voluntarily by fans: http://obligement.free.fr/apropos.php. The latter is a blog. The fact that it is allegedly written by computer engineers and scientists is irrelevant. The WP:SPS section of WP:V makes it pretty clear that blogs are acceptable sources only in exceptional circumstances. The state of being a computer engineer or scientist does not make one an established authority on computer engineering or science, which is the reason why there are junior positions and senior positions in employment. Additionally, have the authors of the blog written about Amiga in reliable sources? It does not appear they have. Rilak (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge any verifiable content to the Amiga article's hardware clones section. Total lack of reliable sources, and while I, as a geek, have considerable sympathy for the outpouring of WP:ILIKEIT-style arguments above, they are not in any way good arguments for inclusion. The "Obligement" source is the closest thing we have to a passable source but I can't find any evidence on the site that it would pass muster as a reliable source, per the relevant guidelines. Micro Mart might suffice as a reliable source if anyone could produce the alleged coverage and if it is significant, independent, etc. I note that a search for "Natami" on Micro Mart's website produces zero results, although I do know that that does not necessarily mean that they have never featured this product in print. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Featured in print here, see above. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bitplane Magazine Italia @ Tothwolf, This is very interesting as Amigafuture is a well known printed Amiga Magazine, edited in Germany in English language. I will add this reference in the article about Natami. Must check if also Bitplane magazine Italia had some articles about the motherboard. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appunti Digitali @Rilak: the fact that Appunti Digitali site is orgaized as a collective blog, in which various people contribute to the articles. is a precise editor publishing style choice, not a diminishing, as it is organized with the style of an open professional social site. Professional work of Mr. Cesare di Mauro, (who wrote the article about Natami on Appunti Digitali) as a skilled software developer and Amiga expert was even quoted by Ars Technica that is a well known site on the web. P.S.: He is not only a software developer, and actually works in mobile telephony software development, but he got also a degree in Computer Science at University of Catania, Italy. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How skilled the blog's contributors are, and whatever the alleged reason is for the blog being a blog, is irrelevant as far as policies and guidelines are concerned. Regarding the Ars Technica article, it is misleading to describing it as quoting Cesare di Mauro when it is actually describing some of his work as a typical example of Amiga game development practices. A more important question is how does this satisfy the requirement that in order for a SPS to be deemed reliable, the author of the source must have published? It does not. Rilak (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A magazine called Amiga Future has been mentioned a couple of times as an example of a reliable source. It is argued that the magazine is a reliable source because it is well-known in the Amiga community and because it is published in print (and online). According to the magazine's impressum, it is published by APC & TCP.[51] Looking up this company on Google has led me to http://www.apc-tcp.de/. It is difficult to determine what this company is (I was unable to find any clear statement as to what the company is). From [52], [53], and [54], it appears it was founded as a Amiga club, becoming a publisher in Amiga games software, a manufacturer of Amiga accessories, and then the publisher of Amiga Future. As a result, APC & TCP is not the typical kind of company that I would expect to be the publisher of literature deemed to be reliable sources. WP:RS does not state whether publications published in these circumstances are examples of a typical reliable source or not. In my view, the claim that Amiga Future is a reliable source is questionable, a view that I have held since its first mention in this AfD. Rilak (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What could be more acceptable source than international magazine with years of tradition, now even printed in two language editions?--Pavlor (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being an international magazine (being available internationally, not in region-specific editions is what I presume is meant), having been published for many years, and being available in multiple languages are not necessarily indicators that it is suitable for indicating notability. I don't think this somehow means that the concerns about the publisher are irrelevant. Rilak (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of a Newspaper @Rilak; So then, from your statement you seem to say that any newspaper or magazine that is owned by a finance tycoon or by a consortium of shareholders, or (in Amiga Future example), a magazine that is sponsored by a computer reseller is partisan or higly unreliable. Ridicolous.

Examples in real world stated that only in some rare cases newspapers owned by some private are factious. The vaste majority have indipendent point of view from their owners and shareholders.

If you doubt of Amiga Future, then you have two opportunities. 1) Conduct a mini-survey by reading the articles they published online, to check if yous spot any partisan point of view about Amiga, Amiga products and manufactures, or if they are constructive critics about Amiga in their articles and reviews. 2) If you want, you can also buy an entire annual publishing (11 issues) and conduct an investigation all by yourself by browsing the entire magazines and realize what is Amiga Future editorial line of action. As an Amiga owner since 1989 I check almost all Amiga magazines ever existed and I found almost always genuine indipendent positions about Amiga manufacturers and software houses, and critic point of view about products they reviewed, and mainly in german and english amiga computing magazines. Infacts they have a great reputation of being very objective. Be free to check by yourself any online PDF collections of Amiga Magazines. Sincerely, --151.30.120.221 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that my comment touched upon the ownership of Amiga Future or that Amiga Future is, in your words, "...a magazine that is sponsored by a computer reseller..." Now that you mention it, it is interesting to consider whether a magazine sponsored by a computer reseller meets the five criteria of WP:N, especially the fourth criteria:

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator.

Rilak (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So then in your words are to exclude a very great number of testimonies of the past, just because these infos (and other news that were difficult to find elsewhere) could be find only on computer magazines of the '80 that were sponsored by Atari or Apple or Commodore??? Indipendency of sources is simple to verify. As I adviced you, just click the mouse and read the articles of Amiga Future present online, and decide by yourself and upon your personal judgement if they meet the indipendency criteria or not. Testing reliability of historic sources is a scientific method, exclude the sources by making innuendo and spreading FUD about their indipendence or insinuating these sources are not reliabile is not a scientific method! Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the initial part of your comment. You said,

"So then in your words are to exclude a very great number of testimonies of the past, just because these infos (and other news that were difficult to find elsewhere) could be find only on computer magazines of the '80 that were sponsored by Atari or Apple or Commodore???"

What testimonies "of the past" am I alleged to have ignored? What are these testimonies to? Judging from the subject of this AfD and the comment you are replying to, I guess it has to be either Natami or Amiga Future. But then you alleged that I have ignored these testimonies since they can only be found in computer magazines of the 1980s sponsored by Atari, Apple, and Commodore. (What has Atari and Apple have to do with this AfD?!) It therefore cannot be testimonies to Natami or Amiga Future since no sources presented in this AfD are from the 1980s, and since both Natami and Amiga Future are not of the 1980s. Regarding Natami, it appears development began in the late 1990s. Regarding Amiga Future, according to the German National Library, it was first published in 1998. So what testimonies are you referring to? What is their relevance to this AfD if they are separated from Natami by at least a decade?

Regarding the rest of your comment, I find your repeated "advising" me to be moot. When you stated (I believe the IP is you since you refer to the edit by it as yours) that Amiga Future is published by a computer reseller (presumably APC & TCP, since you were responding to my "examination" of it), you effectively stated that Amiga Future is not independent from the Amiga platform since its publisher has a business in selling Amiga accessories/hardware/games. See WP:INDEPENDENT.

Lastly, ignoring your unexplained views that my criticism of the magazine is "innuendo" and "FUD"; your view that it is also "unscientific" baffles. How is the scientific method relevant? Perhaps you meant source evaluation. Rilak (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A print magazine dedicated to Amiga topics gives it ample coverage. The magazine owners aren't trying to promote a product that they sell, but instead reviewing something of interest to its readers, the Amiga community. Those who seem knowledgeable about this subject, seem to believe the article is notable. Dream Focus 12:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think rejecting the Amiga Future source as one that is "not independent" is a bit of a shaky argument. The independent requirement, in my opinion, is designed to reject sources that are primary. In this case, if Amiga Future were literally published -- or the article written -- by the makers of Natami, that would be a clear problem. But the fact that it's devoted to the Amiga platform, and that it's publisher is in the business of selling Amiga materials, does not make it a clear cut case of not being independent. Certainly, the publishers of Amiga Future might stand to have some financial gain in the resurgence of the Amiga platform, but it seems to me to be a sufficiently indirect connection that it's not much of a valid concern. They're not selling Natami. It's certainly not a primary source.

  As such, I think Amiga Future should be accepted as a potentially reliable source, and its coverage of Natami is certainly significant. That said, I continue to fall on the side of deletion. In lieu of additional coverage from a pub like the frequently mentioned Micro Mart, I don't see evidence of coverage in multiple reliable sources. Given that Amiga Future is not a slam dunk reliable source -- and I think one could argue that it is so limited in scope as to be similar to local coverage of a local government official, or similar -- I'd really like to see additional sourcing to be convinced that this article clears WP:GNG. Perhaps my "delete" vote could be qualified as "weak," in this case, but it remains delete, despite my not being convinced that Amiga Future is a non-independent source. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: appears to be no sources (either in the article or discernible from Google News or Books) from outside the Amiga enthusiast community, so no indication of notability. Even ignoring this point, the article is poorly sourced and dominated by a WP:INDISCRIMINATEly detailed 'Specifications' section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:23, 18 June 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.