< 17 April	19 April >

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

The result was delete. Blueboy 96 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-birtherism[edit]

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

Neologism, see WP:NEO; the cited source does not use this term, and there is no indication that anyone else does. The article also violates WP:NPOV. I already redirected this once to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, but the author reverted me without explanation. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page hardly violates NPOV any more than Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy page, which appears to be run by die-hard Obama operatives who are opposed to any discussion of the real concerns regarding Obama's birth documentation and categorize anyone who raises suspicions as a birther. No, I'm not a birther, as I fully believe Obama was born in Hawaii, as do most people who have seen the contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements. But there is something extremely unsettling about the way the press (and FactCheck-like organizations) have gone about obscuring and mischaracterizing the simplest facts about the controversy. Why does FactCheck make that ridiculous fuss about having "examined, touched, handled," etc. the "original birth certificate" when it knows full well people will think it's talking about a 1961 document rather than what it really examined? Why do countless news organization perpetuate that same silly misconception? Why does Snopes pretend the whole controversy centers around the authenticity of the 2008 computer print-out, which nobody really cares about because the 1961 long form (if it exists) is what is at the heart of the controversy?

As to the neologism, feel free to find a more appropriate title for the article. But I would note that "Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories" is just as made-up a title.

In short, there are a good number of thoughtful, serious people who can't understand why Obama won't release the 1961 long form and has engaged in so much obfuscation to avoid it. It has nothing to do with a belief that he was born in Kenya or otherwise outside of the USA. Explanations such as "the birthers will never be satisfied" are mere opinion (which also violate NPOV), and explanations such "Hawaii only issues certifications" or "Hawaii can't because of privacy laws" are just outright lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAs is evident from your post, you're attempting to use Wikipedia to argue a political position or promote a point of view. See WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and especially (given your username) Wikipedia:Truth. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I'm finding nothing out there in terms of reliable sourcing. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Can't find one news reference to this term, so I have no idea how this could be sourced. Talking Points Memo has used the term "birther curious" in jest, but I would not recommend we create an article on that passing joke.--Milowent (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As is evident from your post, you're attempting to use Wikipedia to argue a political position or promote a point of view

Please explain how it's "evident" from my post. You're awfully good at empty characterizations and stringing together meaningless acronynms, not so good at explaining your position. And what did you say about the Barack Obama Conspiracy Theories article's deliberately misleading and repeated references to the "original birth certificate?" That it grossly violates NPOV and the whole article is "attempting to argue a political position"? And did you say you violently object to the absence of any sourcing in the first paragraph of the conspiracy article? Thought so!

P.S. Please feel free to address any of the seven actual points made in the post (of course you can't). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 02:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're looking at the article as an article - this debate isn't about Neo-birtherism vs. Original old-school Birtherism, Long-form vs. Certification, or any other topic. At AFD, we evaluate whether the article is compliant with policy, or whether it can be made to be compliant with policy. If not, it is deleted. We're not here to refute the concerns about Obama's birth certificate, and doing so would not change anything about this article. If what the article says is neutral, backed by reliable sources independent of the subject, and if the subject is notable, then the article should be kept - doesn't matter what it says, if it says it in a manner compliant with policy. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by the nominator, the term isn't even used by the single cited source. Dissatisfaction with the consensus reached in an article is not a valid reason for an editor to create a shadow article on the topic. Also, the article seems like a venue for reproduces the thoughts of one National Review columnist. That's not appropriate because the specific column hasn't reached independent notability for its own article. --JamesAM (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In this case, we have an article based on a single source. That source does not use the term referred to by the article. Further, the article is (admittedly) non-neutral, in that it lists seven criticisms of the administration and others' conduct in this matter - none of those seven criticisms being central to the definition of Neo-birtherism. The topic could be defined without rehashing the concerns about the birth certificate issue - the lead, if cleaned up, would be sufficient to that purpose. The article tilts too far toward reiterating those concerns, which is what makes it non-neutral (or unbalanced, if you prefer). I will say that we live in remarkably bizarre times politically, and any new movement (such as neo-birtherism) could gain traction. If it does, and if the term gains widespread use, then an article may be justifiable. But I don't think this one can be a neutral and balanced topic until that coverage comes out to offer dissenting viewpoints directly in the context of neo-birtherism. So, the article is non-neutral and unsourceable at worst, and premature at best. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unnecessary content fork for Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Also, as noted by others, the term Neo-birtherism does not appear to be notable. Nsk92 (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per policy on neologisms and original research. The term exists in a single blog, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Armbrust, Ultraexactzz, Nsk92, and Tarc - it violates many rules:- WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:NEO, WP:RS, WP:FORK, etc., as noted above. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy on WP:Any Criticism of the High Exalted Obama.TruthfulPerson (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you actually consenting to the deletion (which would allow us to avoid the remaining 6 days of AFD discussion), or are you just being sarcastic? NawlinWiki (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, TP, your comment violates WP:AGF. You might note that we've devoted an entire article to the right-wing rubbish about the "Bill Ayers presidential election controversy". JamesMLane t c 23:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it likely that sourcing could be found to add a sentence along these lines to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article: "Some critics of Obama, in addition to or instead of questioning his eligibility, have charged that he is deliberately concealing documents about his birth, and have suggested that such documents might show information he prefers to keep private, such as that his mother's husband was not his biological father." A one-liner like that, with a citation, would give this aspect of birtherism as much attention as it merits. The rest of this article consists of a screed in favor of the author's POV. JamesMLane t c 23:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That works for me. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a poorly written blog page that has no place on Wikipedia plus there are no sources at all. If anything parts of this information might fit on the Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories page but it certainly doesn't need its own page. I Feel Tired (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We're just done with winter around here, but it looks like snow... Nothing reliably sourced, part of a long-term problem. I can't see any reason for further discussion on keeping the article, just discussion on how to handle the editor. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/snow delete. Close enough to WP:A10. Numerous violations of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:NOT. — Rankiri (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Birtherism", while silly, is clearly notable, but this "neo-birtherism" doesn't appear to have attracted any significant level of attention. Everyking (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Snow. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TractorSource[edit]

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

Game mod with no sourcing. This has been here for years and this is the best that can be said about it? Woogee (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - no reliable sources found, let alone any debatable ones to establish notability (mod has had three years to establish any notability), site is dead as well. Let it snow and move on. --Teancum (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, yeah. Pcap ping 20:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable fan mod. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be unverifiable. Marasmusine (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let it snow! — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Spotify. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Maley[edit]

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

Non-notable. One of the references is to a blog, which is probably not a WP:RS, so that leaves only one reference, which is not enough to establish notability. greenrd (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe Redirect to Spotify. The sources are fine but they don't offer much coverage of Maley herself. I also found this and this. Plausible search term perhaps given the coverage that exists.--Michig (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By any measure Roberta is notable! Francium12 00:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spotify. We have next to no information about her other than her working for this company. --GRuban (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spotify. Her only possible notability comes from working for that company, and the sources I found talked more about Spotify than about Ms. Maley. --Darkwind (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ready to Die. Consensus exists that the song does not meet the notability criteria for songs and so thus should be redirected to the album's article. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning (The Notorious B.I.G. song)[edit]

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

Non-notable single, fails WP:NSONG. Contested redirect. SummerPhD (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The song has a video and also has been sampled in many songs since its release. Str8cash (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment

Neither one of those facts address the concern. This song fails WP:NSONG. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Poppa per this. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleate non noteable. It has not charted. music video and samplings do not affect that it should be deleated. STATicVerseatide talk 07:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Blasdell[edit]

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

I would like to delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seenoahrunacrossthefield (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 April 2010

Delete. While the nominating editor did not state a valid reason for deletion, I would have nominated this article if he/she/it did not. This article does not demonstrate the subject meeting WP:BIO as he was the founder of a questionably notable group Lights Out Paris, a local band whose debut album was released within the past two weeks (and whose article is prodded - and will go to AfD, too, should the prod tag be removed). The "references" show local notability, but don't show anything to indicate his band's compliance with WP:BAND. B.Wind (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: band article redirected to nominated one. B.Wind (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:CREATIVE. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. I see that the nominator, seenoahrunacrossthefield, was also the creator of the article - and earlier tried to get rid of it by blanking the page, which of course was reversed. Welcome to Wikipedia, noah. You will eventually learn how to do these things, and I trust you will create lots of articles that you DON'T later wish to delete. In this case, I agree with you that the article should go. The references are not from reliable sources and do not establish notability. Meanwhile you might want to read up on WP:Reliable sources and How to cite sources. And you can always practice using the Wikipedia:Sandbox. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been better sourced, and nominator has changed to very weak keep. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlyne Huff[edit]

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

Notability is not established under the notability guideline for musicians. All the sources I could find when reviewing my own speedy deletion would be inadequate to establish notability. I think the best is this blogcritics entry. Chaser (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded the article slightly and added sources; please take another look. It's still just a stub but I think she qualifies as notable (barely). There will probably be a lot more stuff available when her album comes out next week. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. Change to very weak keep as she maybe just meets WP:BIO with those sources. Given that her album release is next week, she's still an "up and coming" artist rather than one for which notability is firmly established.--Chaser (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep - there are a couple of reliable sources which establish notability. Ashlyne Huff is a singer, songwriter and, first and foremost, a dancer, having participated in several dance competitions.^[1] In 2004 she was one of the winners at the AMTC 2004 Winter Convention in the category 'Overall Dancer'.^[2] Huff's single "Heart of Gold" was featured on the recently released NOW That’s What I Call Music! 33 album, which was the 33rd edition of the (U.S.) Now! series, which sold over 300,000 units in the first 3 weeks.^[3] Apart from this Ashlyne Huff is the daughter of Dann Huff, and thus just like Lauren Harris, Ashlyne Huff's entry into the music world will surely be successful. Presently she is on a US nationwide tour.^[4] It would be a good idea to keep this article given the few reliable sources available, and then have the article rewritten as soon as more additional reliable sources are available once Ashlyne's debut CD is released come May 11 2010.^[5] Amsaim (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Ashlyne Huff at AMTC". Tyrone, GA, USA: Actors, Models & Talent for Christ Inc. Retrieved 24 April 2010.
^ "AMTC 2004 Winter Convention, Overall Winners". Tyrone, GA, USA: Actors, Models & Talent for Christ Inc. Retrieved 24 April 2010.
^ "Ashlyne Huff to Release Self-Titled Debut on May 11th". Nashville, TN, USA: Music News Nashville. Retrieved 24 April 2010.
^ "Official Myspace Page for Ashlyne Huff - Tour Dates & Venues". MySpace.com. Retrieved 24 April 2010.
^ "Official Website - Release date for debut album". Retrieved 24 April 2010.

Comment You might add the information about her dancing to the article. The info about "Now that's what I call music" is already there, as is the info about her father and her current tour. Unfortunately, myspace is not considered a WP:RS "reliable source". And her website is already listed at the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. While the nominator wouldn't normally be the one closing a debate and deleting an article, I think it's ok in this case, since I initially declined to speedy delete this and we clearly have a snowball going here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers Warriors[edit]

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

I declined to speedy this, the creator removed my WP:PROD without fixing the underlying problems or commenting on the proposed deletion. There are no reliable sources cited, I found none in my own search, I couldn't even find reference to this at the Transformers wiki. Not notable or verifiable. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This user seems to invented this fanfic series in his head, and repeatedly posts it on wikipedia. It's nonsense he made up. I delete it whenever he posts it. I consider it vandalism for him to add his fanfic into real articles. Mathewignash (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fanfic entries. I've added another one, a character from these non-notable fanfics. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I also support the deletion of the other article added by Texas Android. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is a rather blatant hoax. I should also note that the OC of has attempted to remove the AfD notices from both articles. Has also made several similar edits under the IP 24.207.226.65 (talk). —Farix (t | c) 22:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him and I am now convinced that this is indeed a total hoax and agree with the speedy deletion, but I probably shouldn't do it myself since I nommed the article. Beeblebrox (talk)

I have to wonder if "hoax" is the right word. If this is from a written fanfic, then it's not really a hoax in my view. But that's in some ways a matter of semantics. Hoax or Fanfic, it does not belong on WP. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It' a hoax in that it presents this material as if it were actually a published comic book series, and the introduction claims that Hasbro released toys based on this series. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BS factory by the article creator which vandalized Transformers related article like this Bedford Afghan truck edit. --KrebMarkt 07:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete both - another blatant hoax and made up nonsense from the same disruptive editor -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above, article is a hoax. - 205.172.21.157 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Michael (professor)[edit]

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

This article about an academic presents no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. A prod was declined with no improvement to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 22:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Weak Keep. He seems to fall into a gray area: not particularly notable in regards to established policy, but notable enough to have an article. So, in the spirit of WP:IAR and WP:COMMON, I change my mind. ~~I also think the article for his book, The Enemy of My Enemy, should be merged into this article.~~. Article provides little evidence for notability as an academic. He might be more notable as an author, but he doesn't appear to be notable in that regard either. ~~There's also an article for his book, The Enemy of My Enemy, which might not be worthy of its own article.~~(21:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)) Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 22:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we've now agreed, at that book's talk page, that the book is in fact notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. DGG clarified the notability policy for books. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 20:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As mentioned when the prod was declined, the requirement is not that the article reflect the subject's notability. But rather than the subject be notable. It's unclear to me whether this has been understood, and a WP:BEFORE analysis of notability outside of a review of the article has been undertaken by the nom. The nom is required, before making a nomination due to sourcing or notability concerns, to "make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." Given that this had already been pointed out at prod, and the nom again limited his criticism to what is reflected in the article, I wonder whether this step was taken, as required. For example, by reviewing articles in ghits searches such as this one, and gbooks searches such as this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hits on your search either refer to the performer or are a book review. I don't see any news articles referring to this "George Michael". Perhaps you can specify a "hit" from that search that you believe is relevant to his notability? Or can you specify which criteria in Wikipedia:PROF#Criteria or WP:AUTHOR the subject of this article satisfies? Your WP:BEFORE argument is beside the point, and doesn't assume good faith. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 02:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to go through it all right now, but are you not seeing the ones (multiple) that refer to him as an expert? Also, since this is a prof, I should have mentioned the gscholar hits.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did find one article that refers to this George Michael: here. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 02:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a more relevant search. And it shows only one news article that mentions him. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 02:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please put on a better show of assuming good faith. Of course I did some searching before attempting to have this article deleted. Specifically, my assumption was that his personal name was too generic to be useful (as the results above indicate) so I searched for the titles of his books. I found a few reviews, as one expects to see for academic books, but nothing to convince me of any special notability. I also searched the Uva-Wise site for any news about him that might show a pass of WP:PROF in some other way, but again what I found did not convince me of anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David -- Of course I assumed good faith. When I de-prod'd it, I pointed you to what the difference was between the prod criteria and the criteria you had mentioned (you referred only to what coverage there was in the article). I also assumed that when you made the nom, in good faith you were indicating that your basis for your nomination was what was in the article. You limited your rationale to that basis only, not speaking of what coverage existed outside the article. And here I pointed out that those good-faith-so-I-know-they-were-honest rationales were not the standard. But rather that the standard is not what is in the article, but rather what RS coverage exists that reflects indicia of notabilility. That seems to me a fair statement on my part, that assumed good faith on your part in your statements. I'm perplexed how you found my comments to be a showing of a paucity of AGF on my part.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me be more explicit. I have not seen any evidence either in the article or elsewhere that convinces me that he passes WP:PROF. But I am still willing to be convinced by specifics. Saying "just look on Google for yourself" is obviously not good enough, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I'll see what I can come up with myself in this regard, and reflect it here or in the article--though I can't do it right this second. I've at least started the process today -- notably, there are three Christian Science Monitor articles from this year that refer to him as an expert in his field, and he received the University of Virginia's "Outstanding Research Award", awarded to a faculty member who "has contributed significantly to published research in his or her discipline". Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The history of the PROD is water under the bridge now. What I'm seeing now is a very thinly referenced article on a scholar who doesn't seem to be notable. Using topic keywords to assist the search I find GS hits for him, but with very few (15, 11, 5, 4, 2, 1) citations (a h-index of 4 is insufficient for WP:PROF). -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. George Michael is an important academic source for anyone studying the far-right. He's the author of four books on the subject, and the article seems to be well-referenced. I can't see a good reason to delete it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per SlimVirgin's comment. —Morning star (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per SimVirgin. I haven't even incorporated into the article all the material that is out there, but there is already enough in the article itself to reflect that he meets criterion 1 of the guidance. In that he has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The three Christian Science Monitor articles from this year that identify him as an expert in his field, and his award for contributing significantly to published research in his discipline, all support this conclusion.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, he meets wp:author criterion 3, as he has written books that have been the subject of multiple independent periodical reviews as reflected in the article, but also for example here, here, and here and in the Jerusalem Post.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inland Empire News and Christian Science Monitor quote him as an expert on extremism at the University of Virgina's College at Wise. I did the Google News search for his name plus "tea Party" to find the right guy. [1] He gets mentioned enough. Dream Focus 07:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the Inland Empire News article it says, "(Source: Christian Science Monitor)". It appears that only CSM has called him an "expert". Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 18:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jing Chang[edit]

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

I'm not finding any sources with detailed coverage, but this may be due to the language issue. I found a passing reference in the Taipei Times, but that's it. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's more than five hundred GNews hits with her Chinese name in the headline [2]. I picked a few which confirmed some of the statements in the article and added them as refs. cab (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. I can't read them, but do you feel they meet WP:N? If so I'll withdraw this. I figured it might be a language problem, but the lack of any real sources in English gave me pause. (I did search for her Chinese name, but couldn't judge how common the name was). Hobit (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, seems to meet WP:N --- I'd never heard of her before today, but most of those headlines are about her, they're in reputable newspapers, and they go into copious detail about her every outfit, public appearance, and all sorts of other details for the celebrity-obsessed. But yeah, I still haven't figured out she's supposed to be called in English ... Chang Jing? Jing Chang? Chang Yun Jing? Chang Yun Ching? With spaces? With hyphens? Transcribed from Taiwanese instead of from Mandarin? Gggaaah. But, to put it in perspective, I figure most of the guys in List of awards and nominations for American Idol contestants don't have much Chinese news coverage either. Cheers, cab (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, I withdraw the nomination. Thanks for finding sources and adding them to the article! Hobit (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've also created a Chinese redirect here. Hobit (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nomination withdrawn, so non-administrator close. Dream Focus 00:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Muggs[edit]

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

~~Do not see any 3rd party reliable sources showing notability, Fails WP:CORP. Author removed prod without addressing issues. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)~~ Forget it... Thanks Silverseren...Admin, Please Close. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Um...hey, Fiftytwo thirty, fancy seeing you here. Er, did you click on the Google News search at the top? Because, well...yeah. 449 hits of non-press sites, which is the most impressive i've seen so far around here, I think. I added some of the better ones to the article. I think it easily meets notability and WP:CORP. Silver seren^C 19:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have closed this early because it is starting to become disruptive. The subject is clearly not notable for their own article; the only issue is whether they should be mentioned in other articles, which is an editorial decision. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Weiner[edit]

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

Per the PROD-tag which was deleted without explanation. It read, With sources including Facebook and YouTube, this BLP is about a person essentially only notable for one event (two distinctly related events, at a stretch), and uses a copyrighted image. ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 18:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Asking one question on a regularly broadcast current affairs program doesn't even begin to fulfill even the vaguest of the general notability guidelines, let alone anything relating to WP:BIO. The episode itself is not notable for a separate article, so neither should an individual whose only claim to notability is an appearance in that episode. If his questioning is really that notable, a brief note could be made on the Question Time artcle page, but even this does not exist with the link in the article pointing to Prime Minister's Questions instead, though his contribution could be placed on the United Kingdom general election debates, 2010 page, though I note no other questions have been deemed notable for inclusion in that article to date. Fenix down (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point made above was edited by another user who indicated that the Question_Time_British_National_Party_controversy article mentioned this event. I have reverted this, as I can see no evidence of this. Joel Weiner is not mentioned even tangentially and his specific question is not listed either. I feel this adds further weight to the idea that his contribution is not in itself inherently notable. I'm happy to remove this comment if it is shown I have overlooked a reference, or if he was mentioned in an earlier version of the article. It appears that later comments have confirmed that his "question" was simply an interruption. Granted one that may have drawn momentary attention to him, but not the sort that would warrant a wiki article. Fenix down (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had crossed that out, and I misunderstood your comment. To clarify, the larger event has an article at Question_Time_British_National_Party_controversy. Mr. Weiner's involvement is not noted in that larger article. As I noted in my deletion argument, this absense gives further proof as to his unnotability. RJ (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two swallows don't make a summer, and two questions asked on TV programmes don't make a person notable, nor need every subject of a Facebook page be documented in an encyclopedia. We should apply the principles and spirit of Wikipedia:BLP1E. It's also noticeable that this article and its talk page have become the targets of puerile vandalism and abuse, directed against its subject and against the proposal to delete the article. NebY (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Copied from Talk:Joel Weiner where I believe it was posted in error. Fenix down (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was an original reviewer who proposed deletion on Joel Weiner. At that point, I only noted the one event and cited WP:BLP1E. Though as I now understand Mr. Weiner has two events to his name, I still feel the article should be deleted for the same reason. Per the WP:BLP1E guideline, Mr. Weiner would be better included as a sub-section in each event article if his participation in the event was notable enough. It is interesting to note that Mr. Weiner is not referred to in the articles Question_Time_British_National_Party_controversy or United_Kingdom_general_election_debates,_2010 suggesting his participation was not notable. Mr. Weiner is unlikely to be a prominent figure in the future. If he has another event to his name, I would reconsider. RJ (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, does anyone know how Mr. Weiner was able to ask the questions in both events? Who chose him? RJ (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection @RJ He effectively butted in for the Question Time question, but for the First Election Debate, he was one of the select few, who were chosen from outside the thirty mile radius, likely because they wanted his question asked. I would take you up on your point that he "is unlikely to be a prominent figure in the future." These appearances were not completely down to chance, he had taken the initiative to write in and apply to these events, presumably more that he didn't get to attend. It is likely just a matter of time before he makes another appearance again and when so, there will already be a page on him to add to, rather than having a new page from scratch because RJ reconsidered. Let this article be; how many swallows do we need for summer to be called summer? --A930913 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Another objection WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" As I noted in the article discussion, "He has received much media coverage, those newspapers in the article, as well as many other newspapers and BBC news (Channel One) more than once." I also invoke WP:ENT, clause 2 which states "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." The many groups about him, with some 11,000+ fans on facebook surely fulfils this criterion. For these reasons, I believe I have proven beyond doubt that this person is of notability. Thank you. --A930913 (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We should userfy the article, so if Mr. Weiner does somehow reach notability, we would not have to start over from scratch. At some point if he keeps asking questions or otherwise is politically engaged, Mr. Weiner would acquire more than his current fleeting notability. I am still for deletion because wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A930913 suggests "It is likely just a matter of time before he makes another appearance again." We cannot count on this and should not predict notability. RJ (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, God no. It should be deleted, and can be undeleted if necessary. Userfying will just make it a target for the disgusting vandalism that's been going on so far. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 21:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too many spam links, which is not appropriate. Other than that, it does not meet WP:ANYBIO, which in other words, meets the general notability guideline for biographies. Although he participated in the notable quiz Question time, he hasn't won any awards out of it or anywhere. The published sources are there, but fails my expectation of BLPs. Minima c (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and possibly Merge to Question Time British National Party controversy. Although he has managed to appear on two high-profile TV debates, it was only the first one that attracted attention from the press. (I saw the BBC report after the leaders' debate, and that was merely repeating the question he asked.) This is a clear case of a Biography of a living person notable for only one event where the person is best covered in the article about the event. Finally, I would recommend doing this for Joel's own protection - leave this page up, and it could become the target for some very nasty and determined vandalism. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both events attracted attention from the press, as opposed to what Chris said. One notable example for the latter event was in The Daily Telegraph. This is therefore clearly not a case of one event. As for The vandalism, - none of which since the semi lock - in previous instances there was only a very short period of time before I or a few others corrected it. I don't mind clearing up the vandalism - what would Wikipedia be if any page that got vandalised was deleted? --A930913 (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It might help if you can show what the coverage of the latter event was - the only Telegraph article I can see relates to the former appearance. Bear in mind, however, Wikipedia is not a news source, and Wikipedia is not the place for participants in blow-by-blow accounts of ongoing news stories. If Joel Weiner continues to get media coverage long after these TV appearances, there might be a case for notability, but we're not there yet. Thanks for your offer of keeping an eye out for vandalism, but unfortunately people disappear from Wikipedia all the time and leave articles unattended. Vandalism that affects real people is a serious problem on Wikipedia, and if the person in question isn't notable, the most effective way to guard the article from vandalism is to not have it at all. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1266377/Return-schoolboy-inquisitor-Jewish-youngster-confronted-Nick-Griffin-Question-Time-demands-answers-leaders.html

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/30538/griffins-question-time-inquisitor-now-takes-party-leaders-itv-debate

to name some more (online articles.) Much of the reason that the page was getting vandalised was because many people are spamming the article link over the web due to the controversy of the deletion. If we let the dust settle, so should the vandalism. A930913 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Better than nothing, but it's clear from these articles that he's only been written about because of his connection to the original event. Whilst we don't have a policy on people notable for two events, when the coverage in the second event is minor and has directly arisen from the first event, I think we should still follow WP:BIO1E. As for vandalism, I have previously had my userpage vandalised for no apparent reason, so unfortunately "letting the dust settle" isn't a safeguard. (Okay, we don't delete content as a pre-emptive move against possible future vandalism, but this is one of the good reasons why we delete content that doesn't meet notability.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— Not yet notable. Provokes vandalism. Will be forgotten before the General Election is over. If we included as "notable" everything or everyone with a facebook fan-base which was then picked up by the media, Wikipedia would be twice the size it is now. Ridiculous.XVI Chancer (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above regarding vandalism. Two options then, a. start writing up everyone with large fan base or b. get the Wikipedia guidelines changed. A930913 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Not everyone who appears on TV and has Facebook Fans needs an encyclopedia article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does meet WP:BASIC, the first section of WP:BIO as pointed out above. --A930913 (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you stop hectoringn everyone, please, A930913? ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 05:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Treasury Tag, the purpose of your account seems solely to defend this article, especially given your lack of edits anywhere else and your comments here: User_talk:Yehudi92#I_Object. The fact of the matter is that the subject does not necessarily meet WP:BASIC, as the criteria clearly indicate that, if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Although his questions have been reported in national newspapers, the coverage has not been particularly widespread, and the articles themselves are really rather short and they are short because there really isn't much to say about the incident. All that has happened is that a surprisingly young individual has asked a couple of slightly awkward questions. There has been no knock on effect of these questions being asked in the wider political sphere, they were merely a couple of moments of passing interest and nothing more and as such. Were he to become a serial questioner on such programmes, I could see that he might become notable, simply for asking questions, but asking two qustions which have had no real impact (the fact that the creators of the Question Time BNP Controversy article didn't include a reference to this could be seen as indicative of its notability within the specific event) does not appear enough to fulfill WP:BASIC, therefore not enough to fulfill WP:BIO, since the lack of fallout from these questions means that he has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

WP:SBST would seem to knock this arguement on the head anyway, since it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability and all we have here is two very short bursts of news about a single topic (British Politics). Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to A930913, I regard the cited coverage as trivial. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Pontificaibus, I regard the cited coverage as multiple independent sources. --A930913 (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"more than just a short burst" fulfilled by, in your own words, "two very short bursts" --A930913 (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: In response to the suggestion that these events will soon be forgotten, perhaps deletions should be held off until at least after the general election when that can be determined. Either way, in accordance with Wikipedia:BLP1E, shouldn't this article be merged with those for Question time and the election debate? Yehudi92 (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but that's not how wikipedia works, see WP:BALL. If something, though I must confess i struggle to imagine what, suddenly makes the subject notable following the forthcoming general election, then an article would be appropriate. However, what is not appropriate is to create articles in anticipation of notability, which I believe has been discussed above. Deleted articles can be recovered in such circumstances. Fenix down (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That still does not deal with the issue of merging the article though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehudi92 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I don't believe there is any consensus for a merge. There is only one user who tentatively suggests it. I feel that there is far too much information in this article for it to be usefully merged. I would have no problem with a very brief comment in the Question time and election debates articles in principle, but I note that the election debates article does not deal with specific questions asked, which might lead to the article being skewed if Joel Weiner's question is mentioned on its own. The Question Time question was not an official question, but an interruption. I'm not sure how you would therefore include it satisfactorily in the article, but I wouldn't object in principle. However, in both instances, since there has been zero political repurcussions from either question, I'm not sure how it could be supported as relevant in either article. Fenix down (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a merge because, although Joel Weiner is currently a long way from a stand-alone article, his question to Nick Griffin has gone down as the iconic moment in the mauling he received from the audience, and the amount of media attention he got after that backs this up. It would be reasonable to include some examples of the comments made to Nick Griffin that evening, and if so Joel's comments would be a good one to pick. I agree that I don't see a reason for Joel Weiner's contribution to the election debate getting any special attention though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to me to be an example of a person who has gained temporary notice for a single event; I also cannot see anything worth merging. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient sourcing to establish notability for a standalone biography. Could be mentioned at United Kingdom general election debates, 2010 if reliable sources support that his questions were significant to the debate itself. jæs (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think there's anything useful to merge into the parent article either. WP:BLP1E. I'm not against a redirect being recreated. Aiken ♫ 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more likely merger candidate is the Question_Time_British_National_Party_controversy article. I am against mentioning Mr. Weiner in the United Kingdom general election debates, 2010. Chris Neville-Smith seems to suggest Mr. Weiner had a notable moment during the Question Time episode. RJ (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A kid who posed a question to a politician? Seriously? WP:ONEEVENT, if that, to a T. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Now if you will excuse me I have to go sterilize the finger I used to push the "keep" button. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metapedia (white nationalist encyclopedia)[edit]

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

Non-notable racist encyclopedia. Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metapedia . Metapedia was eventually made a protected redirect because of repeated attempts at creating a new Metapedia article. Speedy delete was declined because article is substantially different from past versions. Clinchfield (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; deleting due to racist nature of the subject wiki smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. Tisane (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We keep lots of odd stuff around here. It needs some better sourcing, but it's not awful. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The sourcs in the article seem to imply a level of notability (or perhaps notoriety). Them From Space 03:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not going to say that this article is in the best of shape, but I don't see any given valid reason to delete. If we're going to indiscriminately delete racist subjects, why not delete Adolf Hitler or Ku Klux Klan. The main reason to delete something is a lack of notability, and if the Southern Poverty Law Center (one of the most trusted authorities on racism) thinks it's notable enough to do a write-up on this, I think it's notable enough for Wikipedia. Kansan (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable encyclopedia and content in English and 11 other European languages werldwayd (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism (disambiguation)[edit]

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

A disambiguation page that has no articles with ambiguous titles other than the main page -- there is nothing to disambiguate. The content was removed from Neologism by User:Wolfkeeper [3] with the edit summary Other uses: removed 'other uses' articles are not disamb pages. The only one of the linked articles that even mentions "neologism" is Aphasia, and in that context the intended reference is to neologism, not to some other sense. Unless there are other articles with titles that are ambiguous with "neologism", the disambiguation page is unnecessary. older ≠ wiser 18:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —older ≠ wiser 18:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —older ≠ wiser 18:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Proposed deletion should also have held; disambiguation pages fit under the prod guidelines. But since another editor removed the prod, !voting delete per nomination: no ambiguous articles to disambiguate. "Other uses" should be fine in article-space texts, and the information, if needed, can be restored to Neologism. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the disambig page, and replace the 3 referenced "other uses" in the neologism article, per standard merging practice ("significant overlap with the topic of another page") Related and Derived meanings are not the same thing as ambiguous titles (though sometimes they overlap), per WP:DABNOT and MOS:DAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:NOTDICT. Tenuous in the extreme. Rodhull andemu 01:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a disambiguation page with nothing to disambiguate -- Whpq (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is a dictionary entry masquerading as a disambiguation page. Dew Kane (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this silly dictionary entry. Hans Adler 07:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a DAB, not particularly useful. I understand Wolfkeeper's frustration with pre-split content of Neologism. It conflated the concept of neologism discussed in that article (and in studies of autism and aphasia) with different concepts under the same name in theology and psychiatry. This split is not the correct solution, however. Cnilep (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to save the material which seemed to be distinct, it could have been turned into a proper disamb page, but I don't particularly care one way or another about it.- Wolfkeeper 13:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wan Kuzain Wan Kamal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOV both in its writing and its sources. The first source is a forum posting that could have been made by anyone. The second is a blog that reads like it was written by a close family member or friend.

I cannot find significant media coverage or any third party information on Wan Kuzain Wan Kamal that would merit his inclusion in Wikipedia. HarlandQPitt (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is an 11 or 12 year-old child who may or may not make it in the future. Right now all we have is a clear failure to meet WP:ATHLETE and only blogs and Youtube as references. In Wikipedia terms he is non-notable. I tagged the article for speedy deletion; I don't think replacing that with this AfD nomination was necessary. I42 (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't fulfill WP:ATHLETE. Fenix down (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a speedy deletion candidate but plainly not notable either against the community's standard of WP:ATH. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, which is not suprising for someone his age. The lack of significant coverage means he also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't myspace.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Lawson (Author)[edit]

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

Completely non-notable author. Vanity page created by author for a book he wrote and self-published. Neither author nor novel seem to be notable in any reference that I can locate. There is another one or two Alan Lawson's out there that are authors, but none of them are this person. The author seems to have added his book to every online site he can find also, they don't seem to be independent. Canterbury Tail talk 17:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quite comprehensive publicity campaign seems to have been done - around the usual places, Twitter, Bebo etc. I have also found other Alan Lawsons, so I searched for the book and only got two and a half pages - none of which I would consider showed anything more than existence. What I've seen of the text doesn't look bad and definitely is a cut above the stuff that we normally find in AfD. However it is self-published, albeit at the better end of the self-publishing world. For a first work, written while still at university, it shows potential. I feel we will see this Alan Lawson back here. As this is an encyclopaedia, not yet, though. Sell as many as you can, and use the figures to help in getting a 'real' publisher for the next book. Peridon (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - books seem to have been published by a vanity press/self-published and all tne references are also author initiated Porturology (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to VoteVets.org#VetVoice_blog. Unanimous. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Allen Smith[edit]

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

Former BLP Prod--There seem to be sources that he is fairly widely interviewed and cited. I added one to start with. But I am not sure that his career his notable , and I would rather the community decide. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to VoteVets.org. Blog authors need more than a single passing reference to be assured as notable... if there are more references, please add them and I will reconsider my position. I'm also dubious about whether or not a blog is notable by being cited, though if it were, the WSJ and New Yorker are high-profile enough that his name may indeed be notable. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a sensible approach - his notability is in the context of the blog and he can reasonably be mentioned there with a short bio of a couple of sentences, given it informs his writing. Shimgray | talk | 16:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per bahamut0013. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to VoteVets.org#VetVoice_blog. Currently, not much notability is demonstrated outside of his role there. I was just about to close it that way but decided to !vote instead. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 15:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Spanos[edit]

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

I'm puzzled by this one, found while checking BLP prods. I could document only the membership in the Greek football club Panathinaikos, [4] --which is not mentioned in the article. I could find no refs in the Googles for the others. There is however at least one Michael Spanos in American football. As it is not my field, I wonder about the accuracy and authenticity of the article, and hope the people who know more about sources for this sport can help with this. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the content of the article is correct. there is a soccer player michalis spanos in greek football!he is a central defender and as far as i know he has indeed played in italy some seasons ago.only that last seasons he has not been playing in the super league of greece but in the second and third national division! he is indeed born in 1981 as far as i know and i also think he is from florina that is a town in the greek-yugoslavian borders. having this in mind i think that the article is correct..as there are many common things with this player to be considered a co incidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.119.50.111 (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the article is authentic.Michalis Spanos was indeed part of the roster of AEK ATHENS in the past but he just did not had more than 4 or 5 caps with this club! he certainly did better in Italy and became more known in Greece when he came back and was a major contribution to some second division clubs such as Kalamata and Ethnikos Piraeus!although i have no data about him signing to Aris salonica but on the other hand it may be something fresh as the up coming transfer season in Greece is in one month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.119.50.111 (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source to verify any of that? Currently the only "source" in the article is a forum which seems to be concerned with some sort of football fan fiction set 13 years in the future (and fiction certainly is the right word for it with content like "Watford is the absolute favorite for the Champions League title"). There's no mention of him on the squad page of the Aris website. I'm inclined to think this might all be a hoax.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources for that are websites of the above mentioned teams!i found him in fc Kalamata roster 3 seasons ago..and was also in the ethnikos Piraeus roster until last january!these are facts from greek newspapers ,football mags and also there are highlights of him on a sports show on NET channel that covers the action of the second division every week! in the year that Padova FC was promoted from c1 to serie B he is also part of the roster!was not so hard to find! Obviously he is not a hot shot player or whatsoever..but its not that the guy does not...exist!he is known in athens!as far as the end of the article that he is signed by Aris...indeed in the clubs websight there is no official report but there are some websites (contra.gr ,sport-fm.gr,sportime.gr) that within the last month have this as a rumour spreading!that he will eventually sign there with the start of the official transfer window!i dont know more on this.

I couldn't find any mention of this person on RSSSF, EPAE or other websites likely to have an article about an AEK Athens footballer. I'll try a few more, but I suspect most of the information is a hoax. Jogurney (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither sport.gr nor insports.gr had any hits for Μιχάλης Σπανός. Jogurney (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Ethnikos Piraeus' second division matches from the 2008–09 season, and no one named Michalis Spanos appeared in them (or even on the bench). If he is mentioned in Greek newspaper articles, please link one of them here because I can't find any. Jogurney (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"was not so hard to find" - then it shouldn't be too hard to add sources to the article to confirm any of its content..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until someone comes forward with a source to verify the information in the article. I've checked several sources that would cover a person playing in the Greek second division and none of them have a mention of this person. Jogurney (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are provided to confirm any of the article's content, of which there are currently none -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if he IS real, he still fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete content and sources questionable, I believe the article in its present state does more harm than good.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy to User:Nineteen Nightmares/Valley Entertainment Monthly. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Entertainment Monthly[edit]

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

Non-notable publication. The primary contributor has written that the paper was published for less than a year, had a circulation of about 1,000, and was free [5]; since these qualities have been noted as mitigating against notability, they have been removed from the article. Article is mostly anecdotal, trivial, and reads like a personal reminiscence, original research. It is largely unsourced, and those cites that are provided don't clearly establish any importance or prominence as a journalistic venture--the foremost reference is to an article in Flipside (fanzine), whose Wikipedia article itself has no objective references supporting importance or notibility. These appear to be publications of the alternative press, but the guidelines for encyclopedic inclusion are no different than they are for other entities. The primary contributor, a single purpose account, has done much work on this, none of which merits the continued removal of notability and reference tags. Disclosure: I placed many of those templates, and attempted to engage the article's creator, as an IP account. JNW (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB "Userfy" now suggested by nom.[6] Ty 21:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Note Nineteen Nightmares has copied and pasted the article to User:Nineteen Nightmares/Sandbox so there will have to be a history merge to preserve GFDL integrity. Ty 23:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Edits transferred to main article and sandbox deleted. Ty 23:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ty. You have been extremely helpful the last two days and it is much appreciated. Gold star for you! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

All the editors who have participated are helping to make Wikipedia a high standard reference work. Ty 00:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the 'primary contributor' mentioned above and though it doesn't seem to matter to anyone hostile to the article, in its defense it must be said that it was only started a few days ago, IS STILL NOT COMPLETE, and nonetheless already has three external links, at least as much reference material and is an attempt to give a complete picture of the paper and its contributors. I have attempted to produce a document that will meet Wikipedia standards, but within days it is being considered for deletion. "Anecdotal" material can be deleted by anyone, however, I disagree that anything in the article is anecdotal and would urge anyone weighing in on this to read the article, consider the iconoclastic people involved and understand that though the paper had a small circulation and short print run, it influenced several other publications in the area that picked up where it left off. Prior to its introduction, the Central Valley had seen nothing like it. Since Wikipedia's policy is to gather all human knowledge in one place online, who is to say it isn't notable? It is also important to note that the publicaton in its heyday was prior to the widespread use of the internet and in those days, that's the way we got our news. 67.160.248.231 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Please note also that The San Francisco Bay Guardian is a "free" paper and yet is an invaluable document to many people, including myself. The fact that a paper is free or has a small circulation does not automatically make it non-notable and I tried to hide nothing. I believe the circulation is still listed, just in a different place, as I was making an attempt to make the introductory sentence clean without all the extras. This is obvious hostility on the part of the nominator as he/she made no attempt to contact me about the issue. The Valley Entertainment Monthly was entirely supported by advertising, had a sales and reporting staff, editorial department, office and mailing address, as well as business licenses and registration with the State of California. 67.160.248.231 (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Here are Wikipedia's own two first standards for deletion, by the way, this whole thing is ridiculous:

1.Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy (WP:DEL), which explains valid grounds for deletion. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing.
2.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.

Unfortunately, these two steps are being ignored. 67.160.248.231 (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Comment - I disagree that these steps have been ignored. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing. The article cannot be improved because there are few or no reliable sources that can be used for verification. Furthermore, none of the sources demonstrate notability in any way. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing worth saving. Seems a short-lived local publication, unencyclopedic and nearly 20 years out of date...Modernist (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I agree with most of the AfD proposer’s arguments, including those referring to personal reminiscence, original research, etc., I was at two minds on this one. Opting for “keep” is the result of my own personal experience here at Wikipedia, a source that has given me access to far more information on topics I find interesting than I could have imagined just a few short years ago – including much trivia – together with trying to correct the belief of most of my colleagues in the real world that Wikipedia is a waste of time and grossly inaccurate and not to be trusted. All of ‘em intelligent people who probably don’t doubt a word that they read in their favourite newspaper or in other encyclopedias such as Encarta – until they come across something written about an issue they happen to know about... And I know of a good many members of academia who have much to contribute to Wikipedia and who have tried to participate here only to be bitten by more aggressive editors – very often editors who spend much time writing up on pop stars etc. who are undoubtedly notable. Do I digress?
The whole issue of notability does raise serious question which better-qualified wikipedians than me/I have already thrashed out, so this ain’t the place to do it. So, while a local paper, based around a small community, with a circulation of 1,000 copies obviously means nothing in comparison to the circulation of a national newspaper, it may be notable and influential within that community. And the fact that an alternative newspaper doesn’t get itself rave write-ups in the national press (the source of much “reliable” references at Wikipedia) has less to do with notability than with monopolising tactics of the media groups. And while on the subject of alternative and underground, who gave a penny for Gary Larson and Matt Groenig way back when? Or at the other end of the quality scale (subjective), the fact that so-and-so drew up a list of the 1001 best albums of all time, now a major reference here at Wikipedia. But I digress...
Just out of curiousity, I clicked on The San Francisco Bay Guardian mentioned above and at the [[Category:Alternative weekly newspapers|United States]] and the first one I chose at random, Chinook (newspaper), turns out to have had only a slightly longer lifespan than this AfD. I realise that the fact that one article exists doesn’t justify the existence of another, but precisely the existence of this particular AfD has given me access to some other interesting material which happens to link in neatly with...
Obviously none of the above does much to argue objectively for “keep”, and I’m pretty sure the article will be scrapped, but I still think it’s great that Wikipedia can serve as a reference for local events and institutions – however shortlived they may have been, or however long ago they disappeared - that the Establishment doesn't want to keep. Provided they conform to basic guidelines at Wikipedia. Of which notability is the least objective.--Technopat (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Technopat, I agree that your above thoughts don't easily add up to keep. As you say, it's not for us to pass judgment on the means and methods of reliable sources. I'll digress as well: there are many people and subjects I believe deserve notice, and which I'd like to write about here; a publication I write for has a circulation of several hundred thousand, but I haven't started an article about it out of respect for conflict of interest, and because I don't easily find objective sources that mention it--so. If notability is not objective, Wikipedia has done a decent job of setting guidelines for us to use in ascertaining a subject's encyclopedic 'readiness'. And the idea is that such judgments be as free as possible of subjective qualitative assessment. Foolproof? Of course not, but necessary and helpful. Otherwise blogs, primary sources, and each of our personal experiences render everything notable. Respectfully, JNW (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - None of the sources referenced or linked in the article establish any measure of notability. Google and GNews turn up pretty much nothing. Thus I can find no sources that demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy to give Nineteen Nightmares more time to obtain/cite more sources. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the three "external links" included in this article, none of them actually mention the subject. None of the other references have yet been clearly connected to any fact that they are supposed to be intended to support. My objection to this article is not that the subject was short-lived and had a low circulation, but that the sourcing is inadequate and unlikely to get better. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While the referencing in this article has changed since I made my initial recommendation, I don't really know how I can evaluate the sources because most of them are obscure print publications, and even the two that are web sites don't include URLs in the references yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Met, please review the references again. I think the problem may have been that I really didn't know how to list the documents I have in the proper format. I was just throwing things around in tundry sections of the article without realizing how the site expects it to be presented. I actually have four print sources now: an article in Flipside, two in The Hughson Chronicle and one "mention" in The Denair Dispatch, both Central Valley newspapers, where VEM was published.Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any good invoking WP:Hey?--Technopat (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I am in favour of the inclusion of lesser known cultural activities, but they need to meet WP:N, namely there must be reliable sources that mention the subject/comment on it/define its activities/basically show that it has been taken note of by others. These can be online or in print. WP:HEY can be invoked, but if sources are not provided, it is meaningless. Ty 03:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per creator's ongoing work to source references. Ty 21:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little bit of editing tonight, adding references and a photo of the paper, but honestly, I spent a good day or two of my time trying to add an interesting ariticle to this site, which unfortunately didn't meet the oh-so-stringent-and-objective standards of "notibility." So I'm through with it. You win, JNW or whatever your name is.

Someone above said the following:
"And I know of a good many members of academia who have much to contribute to Wikipedia and who have tried to participate here only to be bitten by more aggressive editors..."

No kidding. Hey, I tell you what! Let's all go around and clean up all the newspapers from Wikipedia that aren't owned by Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner!!! Yeah!!!

I'll say this one last time, this whole thing has been an exercise in the ridiculous. If anyone bothered to read the article and decided to turn on their brains instead of their banhammers, we'd probably have some pretty interesting stuff on Wiki. -Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

It has also occured to me that the idea that little information can be found online is an indication that its inclusion in Wikipedia would be a beneficial thing, as people could research an otherwise older publication that does not have a large online presence. Please also note the Heymann phenomenon may apply here as quite a few references, external sources and other source information have since been added to the article. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

How many of these sources actually mention VEM? Could you please quote any text from sources that mentions VEM on the article talk page. The sources appear to be about tangential matters, e.g. "Stanley passed away on August 24, 2007.[4]" This is about Stanley's death, not VEM. Ty 21:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This publication's staff was made up of several individuals all with different backgrounds and professional experience. There is an" online article about his death because people who read the paper knew who he was and might be interested in this new data. Maybe someone who knew him didn't realize he passed away. Who knows? It seems like you have a problem with any information being in the article at all. What a joke. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

You might exercise some restraint in your responses. I have raised no objection to that information being in the article. I have simply said that it does not specifically mention VEM, so therefore it does not contribute to meeting the requirements of WP:N for supporting sources to validate the retention of the article. Ty 00:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are so jaded and biased by this whole process you can't see the forest for the trees. The truth is that article has been developed into something better than most of what I see on here, with the exception of the big articles, such as "Einstein" and such. There is tons of information about the paper, references, pictures, external links, blah, blah, blah. There is nothing non-notable about it except a bunch of panty wastes sitting around deciding what the world should be able to read about on Wikipedia. I see this whole thing as a method of censorship and since the paper wasn't owned by some Captain of Industry, by your estimation it isn't worthy of remembering, even for posterity. It is painfully obvious that if the article were on par with the Wiki article on The New York Times, you all would still vote to delete it. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineeteen Nightmares[reply]

Some might interpret this statement as a personal attack (calling us panty wastes [sic]). It's also a bit uncivil. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aside from the wikipedia article and an image on it, I have found zero - none - no google hits about this publication, on the web or google news...Modernist (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

Question The article sys VEM was "printed by John M. Derby at Mid Valley Publications". The MVP article lists VEM under Mid_Valley_Publications#Shoppers_and_other_Specials. Was VEM just printed by MVP or published by it? If the former, it shouldn't be listed at MVP as one of its publications; if the latter, then VEM should be a redirect to Mid_Valley_Publications#Shoppers_and_other_Specials. Ty 00:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, look harder! You might be able to find other things wrong/to complain about. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Any chance of answering the question and providing helpful information? Ty 00:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems not. OK, I've removed VEM from MVP. Ty 00:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Mid Valley Publications article doesn't have references and only one external link! Let's delete it! C'mon, boys! Kill! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

There will doubtless be some viable references amongst the 23,900 google returns, unlike nil for VEM. Ty 00:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen Nightmares, your confrontational approach to dealing with other editors only causes additional conflict. You might be surprised how willing people would be to help if you altered your tone and familiarized yourself with WP policies. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There appear to be a lot of references to back up the claims made in this article, but they are too vague for me to be able to judge whether they hold any weight or not. Just because there are no google hits doesn't mean there isn't a lot of coverage in print but I'd want better sources. If the person with access to these references wants to go to WP:CIT and do them in the templates, I'd consider voting Keep. Of course they might be flimsy sources in which case no. Article clean-up (which is needed) can come along later. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my post above and the lack of response to it: "How many of these sources actually mention VEM? Could you please quote any text from sources that mentions VEM on the article talk page. The sources appear to be about tangential matters, e.g. "Stanley passed away on August 24, 2007.[4]" This is about Stanley's death, not VEM." Ty 17:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done! 64.168.94.110 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete Notability not sufficiently established; i.e., no significant, non-trivial coverage from third-party reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried finding some references through America's Newspapers through the library. I couldn't find a single mention of it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you read the discussion? Pre-internet! Mentioned in newspapers of the time and referenced in the article. Hello? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Comment - Kettle, meet pot. Apparently you didn't read my comment very well. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is it that a publication however small would be considered non-notable when it contained exclusive interviews with the following people:

Stan Lee (Marvel Comics publisher, Spider-Man creator)

Quiet Riot (band)

Rick Wakeman (musician, Yes)

Mart Nodell (Green Lantern creator)

Beat Farmers (band)

Ronnie Montrose (musician, Gamma, Montrose)

Kevin DuBrow (musician)

There is an obvious agenda to sink this article. There are also many, many other articles on Wiki that actually deserve to be deleted. This was no blog or personal web page, but a working, professional newspaper, with staff, offices, bills, business licences, and so forth. Because you cannot find a mention of a paper that has been closed for the past 16 years does not make it non-notable. It was just produced before the internet was in wide use. What is so hard to understand about that? I have already produced the references and articles in print to show that it was recognized by others. There are also photos of the publication on the article ostensibly to show this was real and that the article is no hoax. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Comment No one is saying that it's a hoax, just that it doesn't meet notability requirements. Interviewing a few famous people or bands does not make a 'zine notable. Multiple instances of non-trivial third-party coverage do. None of the sources provided meet that criteria.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are already three of those. How many does an article need to be notable? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

(ec) In wikipedia terms "recognized by others" means that newspapers, magazines, books or academic works (written/published by someone other than the subject) have written about the subject. Please list any of these works that do this, and provide a quotation from them that shows VEM is mentioned by them. If you can't do this, then it fails the wikipedia guideline WP:N, which is the generally accepted yardstick here for article inclusion. Ty 21:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So then by Wiki's standards The Hughson Chronicle article announcing the paper's first issue should satisfy the naysayers? Why am I thinking that when that is solved, another magical problem will appear? The good thing is the article will blow the pants off 90% of the stuff on the site due to its having been templated, cited and referenced ad nauseum. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

It's not enough for a source to simply mention the VEM, hence the "significant coverage" clause in WP:Notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a start. The article doesn't just mention VEM (although multiple mentions can add up): it is called "Valley Entertainment Monthly releases first issue", so it's about VEM. We have one source at last. One is usually not considered enough, so maybe there are some others lurking somewhere? The material in The Hughson Chronicle should be extracted and used in the article, and the Chronicle then used as a reference in the article, not just dumped at the end of it. Ty 22:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, how would I go about formatting a newspaper article into the Wiki article? I can hambone my way through it, but that method has not seemed to meet with much success, so maybe you can give me some pointers on adding it appropriately. Is there anything in particular I need to do to add it, or can I just add another header and present the article along with with quotes from it, etc.? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

I have replied with information on your talk page. Ty 01:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will continue to make improvements to the article as more documents are uncovered and/or located on the internet and in my storage (I've saved every newspaper, mag and book since I was a kid, so I know there is more out there somewhere, I just have to find it). I've also added a link to the business license from Stanislaus County near the bottom of the article, not that it means much, but further proof that it was a legitimate business and not some homespun fanzine. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

You continue to confuse "proof of existence" with "evidence of notability." I don't think anyone doubts that the newspaper existed, or that it was as described in your article, what's being questioned is whether it satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for notability. If you haven't done so already, please carefully read WP:Notability to understand what that means -- you need to understand that to know what kind of citations you should be looking for: certainly not a business license. If you can't find the necessary citations, you can make a stab at explaining what, exactly (in your opinion) makes the newspaper important eneough to be worthy of an article here. Unfortunately, at this point you've pissed off so many people that you've made it much more difficult to put that kind of argument across, another reason why you should probably retire the article to your userspace (as I suggested on AN/I) to continue to work on it. Besides, at this point it's pretty inevitable that it's going to be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note the review of VEM in Flip Side Magazine as well as the Hughson Chronicle article. That's two FULL articles from verifiable sources, not merely "mentions." I think we've pretty much retired the point unless someone just wants to say two "non-trivial, independent" articles in other professional publications still isn't enough. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

We have no knowledge of what those articles say, and, as yet, they are not used to verify material in the article by referencing. Usually editors consider more than two sources are needed to meet WP:N, so the more you can provide (and use as inline cites), the better. Ty 01:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - The creator and principal contributor has expressed an interest in developing the article so that it will pass muster, so I agree with the suggestion that it be userfied to his space. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to have been a worthwhile little publication, but in perusing the notability standards I come away with the view that this does not meet Wiki standards. The general notability guidelines specifically exempt articles on subjects that are a "flash in the pan," and I regret to say that this publication unfortunately met that description. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per ANI discussion. New editor is working hard to find documentation to establish notability of the topic, and should not have to do that under a stressful looming AFD deadline. Move article to userspace and give author at least a few months to work on it; consider MfD if no progress made by then. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - The article creator is obviously trying very hard to make sure that the article is up to scratch. I'm still sceptical about whether they'll be successful or not but it's a good exercise in learning how Wikipedia's standards work and I for one would be happy to check in on the article as they edit it to help them along. Unfortunately as it stands it doesn't meet the criteria for notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INCUBATE -- Incubation will give the editor time to find appropriate sources. Maurreen (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wojciechowski[edit]

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

Notability is unclear. Is disc golf a notable professional sport? The last paragraph seems to be promoting the subject's products. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any sources at all to show notability at this point.--Milowent (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can I have an advertisement on Wikipedia, too?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. I haven't gotten much sleep in the past few days and overlooked the chart position. –Chase (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Face (Ayumi Hamasaki song)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSONG. –Chase (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, WP:NSONG says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts..." meet notability. So it does. Silver seren^C 18:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darko Žlebnik[edit]

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

A non-notable writer from Slovenia. The contents has been copied from the Slovene Wikipedia, where it was added by sl:User:Daco (contribs), identified as Darko Žlebnik, i.e. self-promotion. Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability concerns... Plus the fact that it has no references. Minima c (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Smihael (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bowin Technology[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, not notable. Only a few hundred google hits, most of which are for unrelated businesses; no reliable secondary sources independent of the business. Miracle Pen (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an Australian research and development company which specializes in Low NOx emission control technologies. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP, no evidence whatsoever of coverage, recognition, or other indicia of notability as far as I can find.
Delete, no attempt whatsoever to assert notability, no independent sources. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Square (CMS)[edit]

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

Only reference I could find to B²e are various links to known virus. Was considering speedy on Notability, but thought I'd get some additional input in case the virus B²e just swamps any chance of the program discussed in the article making the google list. Thoughts? --Haruth (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A plucky blogger has homebrewed a "content management system": Square is a CMS created by Tom Chatting. It started off as a means of replacing Wordpress as his blogging system. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable (yet). PHP started as a homebrew to put up a resume. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect all to their appropriate section in LOMOcean Design. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sampitres[edit]

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

Part of a Walled-gardenish set of articles on boats/yachts (most articles do not make it clear whether their subject is a class or a single vessel) designed by LOMOcean Design. All have a very advertorial style, and I suspect that User:Mwin044 has a conflict of interest (simply on the basis that I don't beleive anyone without a CoI would create such a series of articles as their only contribution). Nearly all sources are first/second party. Some boats have third-party reviews, but I don't believe that they are enough to hang an article on. I am not nominating LOMOcean Design itself, since there may well be sufficient notability. Indeed, smerging these articles with their third-party refs might be the best means to rescue LOMOcean Design. dramatic (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons given above:

dramatic (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Comment - I started preparing this afd several days ago. When I went to add multiple afd tags to some of the articles I see that they have since been prodded. I have gone ahead and replaced the prod tags with afd ones, as it should encourage discussion dramatic (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. No apprent notability. No third party citations. Agree that the author appears to have COI (why LOMOcean Design and nothing else? very suspicious!). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I prodded most of those). No indication of any notability for most of them. Sampitres has been nominated for an award though, and 148m Moonset Trimaran, although not built yet, has received some attention, so these two should be looked at more in detail (by people knowing more about yachts) to see whether they meet WP:N or not. Fram (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I followed a couple of the links for the Moonset and got blank pages - as though articles had been withdrawn. It possibly would be notable if built.dramatic (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I already prodded a few articles about boats built by lomocean. While there are some notable boats by this company, see Ady Gil, most are not. Cathardic (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, lack significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Delay - as a result of this discussion (and since I'll be offline from tonight until Monday) I'd like to put this AFD on hold for a few days (until the middle of next week?) to give user:Mwin044 a chance to rescue some of the articles based on offline sources, then to treat the articles on a case by case basis. dramatic (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 10:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am the person who has written all of these articles. Thankyou all for your input. I have entirely re-written almost everything and have merged the articles into one page with a short description of each boat in order to make it more factual and hopefully it should look less like I am trying to advertise. I have also found many more resources, including magazine articles as well as many other third party internet articles. I am not sure if I am meant to do this on my own or what, but I suggest that the articles that I have written, except for the 148m Moonset Trimaran page, the main LOMOcean Design page and the Planet Solar page, should be deleted. Once they have gone, I will modify the pages that are left with the new text that I have written and the new references etc. I believe that these three pages now have enough references and information that will (hopefully) prove that the boats are notable enough to have their own pages. I am assuming that I should not edit the LOMOcean page yet as if I do it now (while the other pages have not yet been deleted) it will result in double ups of some of the information. Thanks to anybody who can help me out... Mwin044 (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication is not a problem at all. Also, given what you propose, we can probably resolve this by redirecting rather than deleting the individual design articles. dramatic (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the pages that I have talked about, but now I have tried to re-direct the other pages to the LOMOcean Design page, but they have been reverted because the edit was "unconstructive". Is there another way to do it? Mwin044 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Bowes-Lyon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An article about an individual who was related to notable people but who was not notable in his own right Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Members of the peerage (by birth) are generally notable. He will have an entry in Burke's and Debrett's. He was also president of the Royal Horticultural Society for which he received further significant coverage. See this and this. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does an entry in Burke's and Debrett's satisfy WP:NOTABILITY? Do we have Category:Presidents of the Royal Horticultural Society (there are articles on a couple; no mention, however, in the subject's article of any association with the Society)? Which countries or their constituent parts are eligible to have their peerage (by birth) considered notable? Tonga?, Patiala?, Nabha (Gurudutta, Sukh Chain, Surat Singh, Hamir Singh (1755-1783 ), Kapur Singh, Raja Jaswant Singh (1783-1840), Maharaja Devendra Singh, Ranjit Singh, Maharaja Bharpur Singh, Maharaja Bhagwan Singh, Hira Singh, Maharaja Ripudman Singh, Maharaja-Tika Pratap Singh (1923-1995) and all their issue, and the spouses of all their issue, and the antecedents of their spouses)?, Bahawalpur?, Swaziland (all the King's progeny and their consorts and their cousins)? (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Members of the British peerage are generally considered notable by past experience here. The existence or otherwise of a category has no relevance. Other countries are also not relevant to this discussion. --Michig (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak). The man is not, himself, a peer. He is not a baron or higher. I doubt that we should say anyone mentioned in Burke's or Debrett's counts, per se. The honorary offices he held don't SEEM to require separate articles for each holder - the existing lists should do. Now, OTOH, being president of the Royal Horticultural Society may well qualify him. David V Houston (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have specific notability guidelines for Athletes, e.g., and for Pornstars, for crying out loud. I would propose one for nobility - e.g. any peer (baron or higher), plus any reigning monarch or child thereof (but probably not grandchildren). Things would get tricky outside Europe - it's pretty well recognized what 'monarchs' are but 'major nobility' doesn't map well to mediaeval Europe. Is it worth doing, and if so, how would one go about doing it? David V Houston (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have one already and, according to what it says, he is automatically notable. The British are special. :P Silver seren^C 17:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Born, may have made himself useful in his lifetime (though there is nothing in the article to suggest so), died. Applies (or will do so) to a lot of us, even if we are unlikely to be discovered dead by a member of the RF. He is notable, as we are not, by dint of a few notable rellos (Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

(ec)See Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) which appears to reflect how these discussions have gone in the past, but failed to achieve consensus to become an official notability guideline. Minor members of the peerage may have a less clear claim to notability, but Bowes-Lyon was a knight, worked at the Ministry of Economic Warfare as Chief Press Secretary during WWII,[7] and later served as the Lord Lieutenant of Hertfordshire. I don't see how he can be considered "non-notable".--Michig (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article in question should perhaps be merged with other articles of this topic into a new article called Spawn Of Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and KinghorneMatt-tastic (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. *laughs* Silver seren^C 18:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a number of sources. Have any of you looked at a Google Books search? Six hundred and forty-freaking-seven results! I mean, seriously. And, besides the fact that British peerage is almost always automatically notable, I have added some of the better Google Books results to the article, which should rather easily establish WP:BIO notability as well. Silver seren^C 18:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But of the 647, how many do much more than mention him? Some, I'm sure, but raw volume of passing mentions doesn't help, does it? And, no, I don't believe that "British peerage is almost always automatically notable" - at least not 6th sons of peers. (of course, the fact that he was the Queen's brother may be more important that that he was the 6th son of an earl). David V Houston (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i'm pretty sure being brother to the Queen is a much more important stand for notability, especially since it is a direct one-off relation. And I didn't look all that hard into the list of books when I was referencing it, so i'm sure there are even more books with a lot of information, but "Royal feud: the Queen Mother and the Duchess of Windsor" and "Gardeners chronicle & new horticulturist" contain a good amount of information about him (albeit you probably need a magnifying glass to see it. :P) Silver seren^C 21:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned sufficiently in books. Dream Focus 23:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (a) per Wikipedia:Notability (royalty), which has had some support here, as brother of the Queen Mum, and (b) at least of of those books are probably good sources to show he is notable in his own right. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found by Silver seren do appear sufficient to pass WP:GNG. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Pretty clear consensus to keep. Killiondude (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Troutman[edit]

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

WP:COI. The original author, User:Burkeguy, has demonstrated WP:SPA with only contributing to this article. While the article itself was written with the help of an advanced user, User:Chzz, it is still written in a style that seems advertising the subject's accomplishments and self-published books. The 1st reference section of the article is made up of mostly Washington Post articles written by the subject and colleagues. At the top of the biographical page at http://www.resume-place.com/kathryn-k-troutman/kathryns-bio/ is a link to this page, seemingly written by a outsider, but in reality, by someone associated with the subject who outed themselves as such on the Talk page. I feel that it is a violation of WP:Resume. And in conclusion, I feel this is a WP:BAI (reason 1). AeonicOmega(Watcha say?) 06:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eh, i'm not seeing it as a resume. :/ Even if it is as you say, WP:COI is not a reason to put an article up for deletion. It's something that should be tagged and fixed. The sources themselves are valid, since they come from valid publications, regardless of their relation to the subject. The Washington Post is a valid source. Silver seren^C 06:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from me, not suprisingly; absolutely, I declare my involvement. The editor was paid to create the article; I worked with them frequently from early August through to the version 17 Oct when I personally felt that it was acceptable for mainspace. This was after the large amount of careful POV-checking, reference-checks, etc which you can see on Talk:Kathryn_Troutman, User_talk:Burkeguy and my archives 1 2 3 4. Please do review those discussions when considering this. I went to enormous efforts to help them overcome the difficulties with conflict of interest editing, and I believe that I addressed the concerns with considerable care.

I feel that this AfD is unwarranted; notability is clearly established. WP:BA and WP:RESUME are essays; the applicable policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV. The user cooperated in accordance with the WP:COI guideline and I referred to the essay Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest for guidance. I offered many, many hours of assistance, in an utterly neutral and altruistic manner.

I am fully aware of the problems in conflicts of interest, and particularly with respect to biographies of living people; yes, it is difficult and challenging, but is it really this impossible for a COI editor to contribute to the project?

I ask the nominator to please reconsider the heading in WP:AFD;

"Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

For problems that do not require deletion, including [...] articles needing improvement, [...] be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately"^AfDNotice

To end on a lighter note, I am extremely flattered by your description of me as 'an advanced user'; thank you. Best, Chzz ► 07:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

._. *points at you and gasps* I've seen you before! ...so yeah. I think this is the first time i've seen someone be so politely up front about a COI problem. I think you've done a good job in trying to keep the article neutral. Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, I admire you for your upfrontness and work in making articles following Wikipedia policy, even with a conflict of interest. Silver seren^C 07:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because of Chzz's explanation above, which explains the reason for why certain parts of the article are as they are, I felt compelled to put up an actual vote. I took a look through the references again and I really don't see any problem with them. They are significant coverage and show that the subject is notable. That's all I really have to say. Silver seren^C 07:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems note-worthy to me. Refs including Parade, University of Baltimore, Washington Post, Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services Center, Inc., and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. WP:SPA is an essay, not a policy, and even as an essay doesn't dismiss SPAs without due reason. Here we have a person with a WP:COI. Instead of making socks, stacking votes, spamming articlespace with articles, et cetera, they went to great lengths to learn about and follow guidelines on WP:NPOV and WP:COI. I should also point out that the COI guidelines do not expressly forbid such editing, only "strongly discourage" such edits, which is reasonable, since it's hard to follow WP:NPOV when you are closely tied to something. However, since there was a great deal of help from another editor without a COI, there has been some great improvements. Look at this article when it was first made as a userdraft, and then look at it now. While it may not be perfect, I find no defects in it myself to warrant deletion. :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough notability shown - several books published, and significant coverage by reliable sources. (And I concur with Silver seren, and thank Chzz for the efforts made and for being open about it) -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 15:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Downtown Fiction[edit]

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

Non-notable band. ~~Apparently claims of notability, though not valid, trump WP:BAND.~~ Woogee (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BAND isn't trumped. Notability claims only saved them from a speedy deletion. They don't have an album out yet, and their only mentions outside of minor blogs are in lists of bands attending various shows. ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to meet the requirements of WP:BAND. As far as WP:GNG goes, the references are two tour listings, a forum thread, a blog and the briefest of article covering their signing, so nowhere near providing non trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are required. Nuttah (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Downtown Fiction is notable for the following reasons:
1) Signed to Major Label
2) On both of the biggest US touring rock festivals of 2010
3) Have received over 25 syncs on MTV and E! network television shows including The Hills, The Real World, Keeping Up with The Kardashians, and the season finale of MTV's "Styl'd".
4) They've released two EPs, both of which charted Top 50 on iTunes and ranked in the Top 50 Billboard Heat Seekers Charts
5) Trended number 1 on Twitter Worldwide on multiple occasions

How is this band not notable?

Additional links for proof of TV Syncs:
- http://www.mtv.com/shows/the_hills/season_5/episode.jhtml?episodeID=161300
- http://www.mtv.com/shows/styld/episode.jhtml?episodeID=161238
- http://www.mtv.com/shows/rwrr_challenge/fresh_meat_2/episode.jhtml?episodeID=167263

Please reconsider —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.211.56 (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What guidelines at WP:BAND do they meet? Woogee (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Tone 14:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chadwicked[edit]

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

Appears to be a protologism sourced from a forum post. I noticed this because another user tried to nominate this using Twinkle but never created the discussion page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slang dictionary definition - WP:NOTDIC -- Boing! said Zebedee 03:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Attempted coinage, not notable — WP:MADEUP __ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. WP:NFT, WP:G3, WP:SNOW. The only (non-WP:RS) source makes it clear that this is a made up term. Naturally, Google doesn't return any secondary coverage. See this post by the creator of the page. — Rankiri (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Chemical Romance Fourth Album[edit]

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

fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Ironholds (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was a contested PROD, which I simultaneously nominated for AfD. No name, no release date - WP:CRYSTAL -- Boing! said Zebedee 02:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystal CTJF83 chat 04:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The album appears to have been recorded, and there is coverage around ([8], [9], [10], [11]) but it is already covered much better in the band article and there's nothing worth keeping in this article. There isn't enough verifiable information for a separate article yet.--Michig (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hammer time (delete). --IllaZilla (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Claritas (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article has been moved to The Midnight Curfew by an editor citing this as a source for the album's title. However one look at the link shows that The Midnight Curfew is an upcoming documentary DVD about the band, not an album. The move should be undone so that this nomination can proceed without confusion. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like The Midnight Curfew has been rewritten to be about the upcoming DVD, so My Chemical Romance Fourth Album has effectively been deleted now. If the result of this discussion is Delete then I'd say all that needs to be done is to delete the redirect (unless there are any problems with article history that might need to be fixed?). If the result is Keep (which is starting to look unlikely) then the move and subsequent edits would need to be undone -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can of whoop ass[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang terms.

It's not even correct, the phrase is an verb-type phrase 'open a can of whoop ass', but verb titles aren't allowed either (WP:Title); and it's covered at Wiktionary:open a can of whoop ass.

The article consists entirely of a dictionary definition of the term (which means 'a beating' or assault), and a bunch of uses; apparently you can find the term used on bumper stickers, in a powder puff girls short and many other exciting places like on a can of peanuts and an energy drink. I'm reading and waiting for the encyclopedic bit. Oh wait. There isn't one.

I'm calling for DELETE - Wolfkeeper 02:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —- Wolfkeeper 02:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Slang dictionary definition - WP:NOTDIC -- Boing! said Zebedee 03:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't help but agree that this isn't a suitable topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notdict CTJF83 chat 04:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with a yee-haw, per nom. It's fun, it's interesting, it's useful, and it has no place at all in an encyclopaedia. Urban dictionary fodder; perhaps not even Wiktionary-able.--Shirt58 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stone Cold Steve Austin, whose catchphrase this was (according to the Boston Herald and other sources). Wiktionary attributes it to Mr T but gives no source and this doesn't stand up. It is helpful for us to direct readers to the true source of such catchphrases. Here's a few blue links to show that this is standard practise:

Colonel Warden (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dictionary definition. --Junius49 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news and Google book search at the top of the AFD show amply results. This expression is used in many places. And no one ever uses the wiktionary. Notable expressions should have their own pages. This list what the expression means, and a list of notable series that have used it. Dream Focus 03:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is an encyclopedia, not Urban Dictionary. Reyk _YO! 19:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition; trivial sources. PhGustaf (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, culturally significant phrase. Everyking (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
soft redirect to wikt:open a can of whoop ass -Atmoz (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Redirect to wiktionary), per nom (WP:NOTDIC). No sign of reliable sources for origin which means no merge target. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What the world needs now is a good account of the march of this phrase through various works of art, which this article provides. This article is of direct benefit to Civilization. We must not be without it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic. Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 21:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following the 'encyclopedia=/=dictionary' arguments. David V Houston (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (WP:KEEP, WP:SNOW). Non-admin closure. — Rankiri (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution as theory and fact[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Inherently WP:POV and WP:OR . It's not for wiki to debate fact V theory of evolution Gnevin (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple high-quality, reliable sources have discussed this issue, indicating it's a notable topic. POV problems, if they exist, can be corrected through editing. — Scientizzle 01:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea why this is up at AfD. The article is well sourced and finely explains scientific process in terms of evolution. I do not see any POV or OR here. Silver seren^C 02:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no POV or OR here. It's an NPOV examination of the objective difference between fact and theory, in the general context of what "theory" means in science, and in a very notable specific context of Evolution (comparing it with Gravity). It links to the relevant main topics and is well referenced. -- Boing! said Zebedee 02:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Previous AfD closed as a Speedy Keep - has anything significant changed since last time? -- Boing! said Zebedee

Comment This article is a thinly disguised debate over evolution . Where is Plate tectonics as theory and fact]? [12][13][14][15] Gnevin (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no one has made the article yet? If it can be well sourced, then there's no reason not to make an article about it. Silver seren^C 02:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator's reasons for nominating this article for deletion, WP:POV and WP:OR, are not valid reasons for deletion, thus the nominator is not even calling for deletion. For that reason, I call for a speedy keep. Silver seren^C 02:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given above. No valid reason has been given. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. well sourced and balanced. 76.191.143.183 (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are seven references on the first sentence which show that the "theory and fact" discussion is well documented, notable, and ongoing. It is not an NPOV problem for an article to discuss scientifically established facts – the only question is whether the topic is notable and the references show that it is. Johnuniq (talk)
Keep The article is not trying to make a case for evolution; rather it is explaining the terminological confusion surrounding phrases "evolution is a fact", "evolution is a theory". It is not OR — references in the article point to the semantic debate itself rather than simply evidence for and against evolution. — Axel147 (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A rather lovely example of why one should actually read. the. article. but perhaps we should do something about the problematically simplistic title? Plutonium27 (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no question that this isn't a notable issue that should have an entry, if the nominator is unhappy about some of the content this is not the way to get that changed. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a legit topic, sources easily found. WP shouldn't host a debate, or choose a side in it. It should objectively describe the existing debate. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable topic. On first sight I can see no content problems, either. Fringe (creationist) arguments get an unusual amount of attention in the article, but that's appropriate because the article is fringe-related. Hans Adler 06:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid topic as it addresses some very common misconceptions regarding the distinction between fact and theory as those concepts pertain to a theory that is heavily debated in the public sphere.DoktorDec (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't see any actual objection here - the ideas associated with evolution can be seen as both a theory and a fact. Cortical (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian contestants on international beauty pageants[edit]

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

This article is a list of seemingly unnotable Hungarian participants in beauty contests and falls foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and possibly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 21:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The standards for lists are significantly looser than those for articles as they are seen as a helpful guide to navigation. The only possible bars to this list are that the entries on it require dual notability (notable for being a beauty pageant contestant, and for being from Hungary) and that there has to be sufficient content to defeat the allegation that the list is overly specific. Both of those seem fine here, so the only remaining critierion is that the list "contributes to the state of human knowledge", which it does, in an albeit minor way. See WP:SALAT for the relevant policy. (Note in WP:DIRECTORY that the criterion "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" relates only to articles, not lists or categories, both of which deal with that issue separately, at WP:SALAT and WP:OVERCAT respectively.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:STAND, lists such as this are articles and are not exempt from policies such as WP:NOT. Interpreting the policy to fit lists is a different question altogether, but WP:DIRECTORY most certainly does apply to list articles such as this. Them From Space 05:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm the author of the article. I've created the page to collect all the Hungarian beauty pageant winners in one page, who participated the most notable international beauty pageants. Almost all the Hungarian version of these pageants (for example Miss Universe Hungary for Miss Universe) are already written. Maybe the list itself doesn't "contribute to the state of human knowledge" but if separate articles can be written for not notable beauty pageant winners (just one example is Monika Zguro who was Miss Albania in 1993 but wasn't even a semifinalist in Miss Universe 1993), a list (and not separate articles) can be written, too. I know there are some separate articles of Hungarian beauty queens, but these articles aren't my work. --Perfectmiss (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak) Personally, I think this is a useful collection of information not easily findable elsewhere on wiki. I could imagine it as an article in a (Hungarian) encyclopedia. I do agree that it's pretty close to the line. David V Houston (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rough consensus is that the subject is a notable concept to be expanded and improved. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sentry gun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Largely non-notable, makes claim that CIWS systems are referred to as sentry guns, when that term is basically only used in fiction, without any support. Article was initially about fictional uses, with a slight amount of coverage of real uses, but since had fictional info cut out. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, as there is some use of the term outside fiction, or redirect to Close-in weapon system which is very similar.--Dmol (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ooo, this is complicated. I mean, sentry guns are well-known by the general population, but it's rather hard to find sources about real life versions. Obviously there has to be some out there, but it could be quite the task. A cursory Google news search for me just kept pulling up stuff for Team Fortress 2. :/ Silverseren^C 04:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment they're also called "auto guns", but good luck searching that, since you'll find alot of stuff about automatic weapons (ie. machine guns) in the mix... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking fairly hard, there don't seem to be any real world examples. The Samsung thing appeared in the news briefly back in 2005, and hasn't been heard of since. So it probably never got beyond the prototype stage. Most of the serious military powers don't build fixed defense systems; that went out with the Maginot Line. Mobile military robots are quite real, and there's serious discussion over how much armament and autonomy to allow them. But that's covered under Killbot. --John Nagle (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that there should probably still be a "Sentry guns in fiction" section. There'd be more than enough references for that. Silver seren^C 05:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Revert. The article has suffered badly from vandalism in the last fortnight and is currenly locked. Sentry guns are very notable in computer games and all reference to them has been deleted in that vandalism. What is left is reference to real world military use which could be redirected to CIWS without much complaint. However to most people a sentry gun exists in a game, they will never have seen or care about a 'real' one. Computer games gross more in revenue than films these days and sentry guns are very common. Szzuk (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Revert as well as rename There appears to be no real world use of this term, as such this should be Sentry Guns (fiction). Remove all teh dubious real world stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kee and revert to the fictional uses. The usage in fictional media is certainly notable. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sentry guns are not real, a google search proves that. There is no weapon in the world that is completely autonomous. The Phalanx is in many respects no different from any other CIWS and is controlled by humans, just not "aimed" however. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about using the article as sentry guns in fiction, which it was a couple days ago, before it was suddenly attacked by a swarm of vandals? Silver seren^C 05:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I especially don't think we should have an article on a fictional type of gun, that belongs on wikia. I assume those "vandals" were attempting to save the article by giving it some real-world notability. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has little real world notability. Please explain your rationale in more depth, it isn't obvious why this shouldn't be a fictional article? Szzuk (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Real world application" is NOT a requirement for notability. All a subject article needs is sources that are from reliable publications. Sentry guns in fiction are notable from various references and descriptions across the board. The article did not need to be saved and it did not need real world applications applied to it, because it has none. Silver seren^C 06:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL "sentry guns" are not notable, they've never even been a main subject of a work of fiction. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Revert From the reasons other people have put, I do believe that it was a worthy article back when it was about sentry guns and their use in fiction. That is a worthy topic, what it is currently is not. Silver seren^C 05:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Ryan4314 (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite (or revert). Keep it on subject, and keep out the blatant spamming. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps automatic weapons systems would be a better name. Found this in Wired magazine [16] Dream Focus 09:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any mention of sentry gun, am I missing it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic, self-aware defense systems would, essentially, be sentry guns. That's his point, I believe. Silver seren^C 18:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not original research, its common sense. I suggested we change the name to automatic weapons systems, since the only thing officially caused sentry guns are in video games. List real life systems, and then list the fictional ones afterward. Dream Focus 21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These weapon systems are not "automatic", so it is wrong for you to decide to dub them "automatic weapons systems". Plus we have an article on these weapons already which is far more precise. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+Also I would add that unless a weapon system is called or classed by RS as a sentry gun we cannot call it one. Nor do we need two articels on the same subject. Also is there an RS that defines what is meant by the term sentry gun?Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One could probably be found, but, once again, it would likely be a source that's speaking in terms of fiction. Silver seren^C 18:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has to become solely fictional sentry guns, with real world sentry guns mentioned as 'other uses' and sent to CIWS. Szzuk (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I noted below, there was an earlier version that is much better. And any real world applications from there can be trimmed down if necessary. Silver seren^C 19:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That version is quite good, I looked but didn't find anything as close. I think it is best to simply delete the real world mentions. Then say This article is about the fictional sentry guns in video games. For real world sentry guns see CIWS. Szzuk (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the fictional element should be brought to the fore or else the same reversal may occur again. Szzuk (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There don't seem to be any third party sources discussing this. Unless reliable third-party sources are produced, this is just original research. AniMate 22:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at what the prior version of this article was, the version we are all voting to revert it to? Silver seren^C 00:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those sources aren't exactly reliable. AniMate 00:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The refs aren't much no. But the article there is quite substantial and it is hard to argue that the topic doesn't pass GNG. Szzuk (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to prove something passes GNG is with sources. If this topic actually is notable, find some sources. AniMate 20:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The votes in this discussion, 8 keep and 3 delete, say its notable. It can be verified later. Szzuk (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Numbers in these discussions are secondary to strength of arguments. If you can't find sources, and it sounds like you can't, we cannot have an article on this. It's simple. The best and only way to keep an article from being deleted is to source it. AniMate 21:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs that take this form never end in delete. WP is a work in progress - WP:NOTDONE. Simple. Szzuk (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but suggest separating into two articles, to keep the real-world and fictional content apart. Surprisingly, the fictional concept may actually be the more notable one here, but either way there's probably enough references to write a decent article on the subject. Robofish (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn after article was improved. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Rosato[edit]

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

I speedily deleted this article because of the lack of evidence of notability, but restored it at request from the article's creator, who believed he could supply evidence. In my opinion, he has failed to do so. Deb (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Appears to be quoted and interviewed in the media as an expert on money matters. NPR, CNN [17] [18], etc. Subject matter experts tend to get some leeway, by analogy with WP:PROF criterion 7. That said, I really don't see that Wikipedia benefits all that much by inclusion, so weak. Ray^Talk 21:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I have updated the page with additional in-line references (Are these good enough? - you decide and help). I do see her pretty often appearing in the media as an expert on money matters. --ouieak (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Unless the page can be filled out to demonstrate why she is notable (I'm not in a position to make that distinction) then the page should be deleted. In it's current state it should be deleted. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment meets #8 close to editor-in-chief and #7 of WP:PROF. --ouieak (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is she editor-in-chief of and in what way is the academically notable? Deb (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said close to. She contributes to magazines...--ouieak (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. Deb (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She appears frequently as an expert on money matters etc on CNN, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC US TV Netwrok --ouieak (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the article says, but these statements should be backed up. Glad to see you have now done something to improve the references. Deb (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is not in academia, went to one of the top Ivy League schools to earn her MBA. Is she more than a professor of US schools? Not all profs are WP:PROF - we do see her often in the US (Not India or in Australia) on TV. She is an expert in her field. She is an American television reporter and correspondent, American broadcast news analyst and a female journalist.--ouieak (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets #7, #8 close to #8 (not exactly) of WP:PROF. --At-par (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see how PROF # 7 applies here. As for #8, where does it say she's been an editor-in-chief? Which journal? Are there references that demonstrate this? It seems to me that the slightly more general WP:CREATIVE is the relevant guideline. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Neutral - Although she seems to be interviewed a bit and has written many pieces, I can't find any independent sources about her. I think if someone can find at least one independent article of which she is the subject, I would say keep. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 02:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Urgh, I hate trying to find sources for reporters, you always just find all the junk that they've written. She is clearly notable, having been lead editor. I've added the sources that I could find. There has to be some other method of establishing better notability than with articles directly about someone. I mean, she's been as editor for several different major publications, has gone on numerous television shows for interviews, and has written tons of stuff. That all makes her notable in my head. Silver seren^C 04:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well she needs to be notable per WP:GNG. If she's notable then you'd think that she would have been written about. Heck, I can't even find that her alma mater or her hometown newspaper wrote about her. I'm guessing she hasn't won any awards or other distinctions, as those would have popped up by now. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 06:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Ray says, she is quoted and interviewed enough on a notable television news show. Dream Focus 23:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References have been improved enough for me not to be bothered about it any more. Deb (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ℳøℕø 22:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formstack[edit]

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

Recently started web company without any independent references, no obvious claims of notability Dmol (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seems like marketing to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.130.46.151 (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC) — 89.130.46.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ Have added plenty of refs for notability. This company is new (I hadn't heard of it before) but has extensive third party media coverage. Try googling next time. Little Professor (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I now change my vote from Keep to Merge with formspring.me. Most of the third party media coverage I added was related to the formspring.me web product rather than the parent company Formstack. I didn't realize formspring.me had its own wiki article, which renders this one redundant. There is hardly any third party coverage of Formstack as a company in its own right. Little Professor (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through these two articles and wondered the same thing myself. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Formstack is not the parent company of formspring.me. FormSpring.com spun-off formspring.me as a separate company and then FormSpring.com change it's name to Formstack.com. There is also plenty of press coverage of Formstack back when it was called FormSpring (and not referring to formspring.me). Noah Coffey 09:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a Web startup company is not a mark against notability, especially when it has had so much press coverage for it and its products (formspring.me and related sites, in this case) in the few years of operation. More than enough reliable news sources to meet corporate or Web notability requirements. Steven Walling 18:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those participating should note that the company very recently changed its name from FormSpring to Formstack to avoid confusion with formspring.me, a very popular Web service it runs using its technology. Thus, a lot of previous coverage calls them FormSpring but may be referring to either the website or the company depending on the context. Either way, they've gotten quite a bit of press. Steven Walling 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company has received significant coverage due to controversy about formspring.me --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 01:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- After some recent edits to the Formstack page, I am changing my !vote to Delete. turns out formspring.me is actually a separate company that was spun out by Formstack. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 18:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seems to be a reasonable amount of press coverage for this company. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 02:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as User:Pdcook said, there seems to be enough coverage to establish notability, and it seems to be an independent company from formspring.me (but I'm not 100% sure). Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better Thailand Foundation[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [19]. simply being a charity that does "important work" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've fixed the existing ref - it was a 404, and I've added a ref for the foundation itself (but no opinion on notability at the moment). -- Boing! said Zebedee 03:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as it seems to be a valid and worthwhile organization, and I, personally would like to see it kept, it does seem to fail notability - I don't see any coverage. Even the Thai sites I get (when 'translated') seem to be only listings, not actually about the organization. David V Houston (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, regretfully I have to agree that there doesn't appear to be any notable coverage. I found one brief mention in the Bangkok Post, but it was only in passing. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Healing for the Abused[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. another non notable tiny organisation. nothing in gnews [20]. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability established. Truthsort (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per aboveDavid V Houston (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to have any coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Opinions are split on whether or not the subject should remain as a standalone article or merged so that discussion can continue on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethem[edit]

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

Very minor [21] and non-notable [22] character in the Book of Mormon. Note: this follows an unusual claim that WP:FICT does not apply to mythology [23]. ―AoV² 01:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ The article is nothing. No notability. not encyclopedic. etc. Outback the koala (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jaredites, per Phil Bridger reasoning. Outback the koala (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any person in sacred scripture of any significant religion is notable. It's not our place to decide what does or does not class as mythology. (and he is it's included in standard reference sources) DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that “significant coverage” is more than a trivial mention. The predescribed scripture only says Mr. Ethem was king of the fictional Jaredite nation for an undecided span of years, and begat a son named “Moron” [sic]. Any additional “facts” it presents would need to stem from an imagination other than Joseph Smith′s, but that′s fine if it helps you find something else to write. ―AoV² 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - significant mention applies to secondary sources. It's a primary source, and in general we have held that every individual character that is more than a name without any information at all in sacred scripture is appropriate. I would even include names on a list, but this is more than that. I do not think we have any business trying to distinguish the true authorship of what a major religion counts as scripture. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    - I could find no significant mention of Ethem, king of “Jaredites” in primary or in secondary sources, and thus no basis upon which to write more than 1–2 sentences. Perhaps redirecting to a long list would be most appropriate, as we′ve done for about half of the alleged ancestors of Jesus, the ones whose presence in religious text is similarly trivial. That said, let me know if you find any content for a proper article about this subject. ―AoV² 22:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Proper AfD format is not being followed on this page. (Would fix it if I could, but I don't know how. Outback the koala (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―AoV² 22:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This book has a hundred or so words about the subject and this one somewhat fewer. If this isn't kept as a separate article then mention of the subject should be made in Jaredites and Ethem redirected there. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Phil Bridger. If the scope of coverage is the concern, then keep what we've got by merging with Jaredites. If more sources become available, a fork back out might be appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a figure in a major religious text, he is bound to have had some mention in outside sources. The ones provided by Phil Bridger are sufficient for a stand-alone article. Them From Space 06:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bridger. I strongly doubt that every single named character in the Old Testament/Tanakh has (or should have) his or her own specific entry, and the Book of Mormon is certainly not MORE notable than the Bible. David V Houston (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The statement "Note: this follows an unusual claim that WP:FICT does not apply to mythology" by AoV2 is remarkably disingenuous. The Book of Mormon is NOT 'mythology' it is (part of) the Scriptures of a significant and growing world religion. I, personally, may (and do) think it's fiction, but millions of believers hold it as Holy Writ, and so it must be judged by Scriptural standards, not fictional ones. David V Houston (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - I don't think every religious figure, especially minor ones, are notable enough for their own article, but they should have a place somewhere. I'd say either on Jaredites or on a new list created for these characters. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but enough for a stand alone article?? Look at the content. I don't see it getting expanded on further. Outback the koala (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anantara Dhigu[edit]

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

One of serveral advertisements created by Keen Media Eeekster (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. I don't like double relisting non-BLPs but this article does look like an advertisement so I think a little more discussion is needed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It reads like an advertising brochure to me -- Boing! said Zebedee 03:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (weak): It sure does look far more like a brochure/blurb than an encyclopedia article. OTOH, it HAS been covered by several travel writers, as listed in the article, so might actually qualify as 'notable', although the content/style would have to be fixed. OT3H, travel writers are notorious for producing what amounts to blurbs themselves, and may not fall under the necessary 'significant' or 'serious' coverage (I forget the terminology we use). OT4H, if we rule out travelogues, it'd be very difficult for any vacation venue to be 'notable'. So I don't end up with a firm opinion at all. David V Houston (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Willemijn Verkaik[edit]

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

No non-trivial coverage found anywhere. A couple hits in Dutch but machine translation showed them to be trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sie sind verrückt! I have added some sources, translated versions (though you can always click original to read the original language text if you'd like.) She is easily notable from those sources. Next time, maybe look a little harder? :P Silver seren^C 04:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like she has 3 major roles in 3 productions. That should be enough, no? David V Houston (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not an expert in the German theater scene, but it seems from the cited articles that the Wicked production she starred in is the highest level of musical theater in Germany (i.e. not a regional or school production). It was a notable enough production to be mentioned in the Wicked article. So it seems like the German equivalent of Broadway or West End theater. And I know it's indirect evidence, but it seems telling that she also has articles in three other language wikipedias. --JamesAM (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant roles in multiple productions, therefore passes WP:ENT. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Legrand[edit]

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

No non-trivial sources found. Character doesn't have an article either. No proof that she's credited as a "main cast member." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 05:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 05:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources for, I believe, every single sentence of the article. There are numerous other references to find on Google News. Silver seren^C 05:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple major roles per Silver serenDavid V Houston (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of mention of her out there. Hard to sort through it all, but she has played a notable role in many notable plays. Dream Focus 00:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and further improve. Career in television and stage meet WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Rowley Jones[edit]

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

Questionable notability, tagged since November. Only sources found were trivial or primary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did some minor searching and found a Hollywood Reporter review which singles this performer out. There's almost certain to be more. MAjor theatrical productions - especially musicals - are heavily reviewed. Evalpor (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 06:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 06:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added reliable sources to the article and verified the notability of the subject. Ciao! Silver seren^C 06:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I clicked Google news search at the top of the AFD, and I see articles talking about her straight away. Dream Focus 00:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and further improve. Notable stage actress whose performances are well received and reviewed in multiple reliable sources over a nearly 10-year period. Come'on nominator... how could you have missed 'em? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ic21 mindmap[edit]

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

Computer program with no evidence of notability. The program is, according to the article, still in Beta. If the final version achieves some significance then surely that is the time for an article. Malcolma (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 21:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Academic software that seems to lack independent coverage. Pcap ping 16:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Channel best-selling music artists[edit]

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

WP:UNDUE, not to mention most of this page has mostly unsourced (and likely false) claims. –Chase (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed this article, and was pondering what to do with it. Sourcing is certainly an issue here, although none of the claims seem particularly outrageous, and all could be corrected in a few days of research. Can you expand a bit on why you think WP:UNDUE applies?—Kww(talk) 19:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems undue because it gives unnecessary emphasis to Disney singers. –Chase (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 21:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, i think this page is well structered and well thought up,--71.67.179.158 (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. This page would be improved by doing the following: (1) Removing the "genre" column. It's not necessary since every single artist listed performs some form of pop music. It's not like Disney Channel has developed a bunch of classical, jazz, and zydeco artists to go along with Miley Cyrus. (2) Removing "High School Musical" from the "artist" listing. High School Musical is a series of movies, both television and theatrical, featuring a variety of performers, not an artist in itself. (3) Clarifying how Lindsay Lohan qualifies for the list. Her claimed association with the channel is the movie Freaky Friday (2003 film), but that was a theatrical movie, not made for the Disney Channel as far as I can find. Furthermore, Lohan's years with the channel are said to have run from 1998 to 2005, except that she didn't do anything for the Disney Channel (as opposed to Disney's theatrical film division) in 1998 or 2005. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lohan began her career with Disney by starring The Parent Trap, which was a theatrical film but has been shown on Disney Channel for many occasions. She starred in two Disney television films, Life-Size and Get a Clue in 2000 and 2002. Both were Disney Channel Original Movie, so this would constitute her as a Disney Channel star. She later starred in Freaky Friday, Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, and Herbie: Fully Loaded. I think this page should be called "List of best-selling Disney artists." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travismullins1996 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, Life-Size debuted on ABC, not the Disney Channel. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sondergeräte[edit]

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

There's no sound way to fix this stub. Its correct title would be "Sonder Gerät" or "Sondergerät" which translates (from German) to "special device" or "special equipment". The term was used in reference to various military prototypes, one of which is loosely described in the current one-liner. But there is no specific piece of equipment that goes by that name. Pichpich (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator's assessment. Deb (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment- if this is in under the incorrect name, why not just rename it? Why bring it to afd? Umbralcorax (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read carefully, you'll note that the argument for deletion has nothing to do with the name. But I mention it because if anyone is interested in checking sources online, the current title will be close to useless. Pichpich (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it, there's nothing there that tells me any of this. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad that's cleared up then... Pichpich (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there any reason why the whole series can't be described in the current article? If "Sondergerät" is just a nickname, we can rename the article to something a little less ambiguous while we are at it. Unless, of course, the various items with such a nickname have no real relation to eachother other than the nickname. bahamut0013^words _deeds 10:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's not a series. It's really similar to the terms "prototype" or "experimental": it's applied to a wide variety of auxiliary systems. I suppose the article could be about this fact but then it would just be a dictionary definition. I think it's pretty telling that the article "Sondergerät" does not exist in the German Wikipedia. Pichpich (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'd say delete it. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if indeed the only thing these devices have in common is having been called "Sondergeräte", which could really mean any kind of device whatsoever. Otherwise, no vote. JIP | Talk 07:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly re-name if someone can find the actual name for the weapon. Possibly userfy to let the creator do that? David V Houston (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Important note. The original author of the article has not participated in the debate here but he left a note on Talk:Sondergeräte. For simplicity, I'm copy-pasting his comment:

This is a very important German weapon during WWII. It had apparently caused a number of Allied casualties, and was from what my understanding is one of the key component of all German night fighters during the late years of the war. Such an important piece of weaponry really needs to have a dedicated page. I hope that people with more information on the topic will contribute over time. The sources on this one as on few other German WWII secret weapons are scarce, usually few sentences in few books. I feel that more light should be shed on the secret weaponry on both sides of the conflict, especially the once that saw such a massive usage as the Sondergerät. (comment by Bmitov (talk · contribs))

Of course articles on secret German weapons are important. But the weapon that the article is trying to describe (and unfortunately the article is too vague to determine which weapon we're talking about) is not called the Sondergerät. Pichpich (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this book (page 87; no comments on author's reliability) describes similar hardware without providing a definite name. Wikipedia should not invent names. If there were more verifiable content a redirect could do, but there's not much content anyway... I don't buy the argument on "sources on German weapons are scarce". In 1945 both US and USSR seized and examined every bit of technical research; at least the American part has been declassified. If it's real there must be more evidence. There's a caveat, however: German research wasn't all rocket science. They had genuine breakthroughs and they had outright quackery, and it should be no surprise that the Allies did not really care about the latter. East of Borschov (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "SG500 Jägerfaust" or "Sondergerät 500 Jägerfaust". This source, referenced in the article, describes the weapon system rather well. The term Sondergerät, or even worse, its plural Sondergeräte is too general for this particular description (although not an invention). As I understand it, Sondergerät is a German military term for special additions mounted on standard military equipment. As such, this might be suitable for Wiktionary. --Pgallert (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain that this is incorrect. There is an article on the SG500: Jagdfaust. But the SG500 is an upward-firing anti-aircraft weapon whereas the one described by the article is supposed to be anti-tank and downward-firing. These are not the same, despite the apparent symmetry. Pichpich (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mobility-as-a-Service[edit]

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

Article created under WP:COI by subject (User:Fiberlink), blatant WP:COPYVIO of their commercial whitepaper, irrelevant/unreliable/paywalled/self-published sources used (since removed), not verifiably notable, reads like an advert (even if author removed the tag), lots of original research, etc. etc. thus:

Strong Delete as nominator -- samj _in^out 14:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm curious as to why this article doesn't qualify for CSD G12.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sam!

I am the author of the article Mobility-as-a-Service.

I am new to Wikipedia and this is one of my first contributions to Wikipedia. Before starting to write in Wikipedia, I had very thoroughly studied the guidelines for contribution to Wikipedia. Before making my article live, I had been developing it in my Sandbox space and had got the article reviewed from at least four wiki editors. I have been constantly criticized for the advert tone of the article. I have not ignored this remark and am working on to improve the article. If you look at the article (with references added), I have placed enough references to maintain the notability of the article. When you said that I have violated the copyright acts by using one of the readily available white papers, I did not understand. The reference white paper was readily available on the public domain. I consulted my mentor and he explained that I might have picked up content of the article directly from the whitepaper. I am a ‘writer’ by profession and do not enjoy infringing. However, I am currently restudying my article to verify your claim.

I have worked hard on my article and hope to contribute more to Wikipedia articles. I request you to not nominate the article for deletion. I would be happy to work on the article in my stub area under your mentorship. I had been looking for a mentor under the wiki computing projects and will be glad to get your help. PCJain (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi. This article and copyright concerns in it have been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 April 11 for evaluation. There does not seem to be extensive copying from any one source, but some close paraphrasing and smaller copying has been detected in several. The white paper in question is not public domain, I'm afraid, but is reserved under copyright (© THINKstrategies, Inc., 2008). Even if it were not clearly marked reserved, I'm afraid we'd have to be able to verify what makes it public domain before we'd be able to use it. In addition to the concerns with that source, I've found a bit of content that seems to be taken from [24] (it says "Companies today are strategically connecting to partners, suppliers and customers around the world to optimise efficiency and drive down business costs"; the article says, "Companies today are strategically connecting to partners, suppliers and customers around the world to optimize efficiency and reduce business costs.") and from [25] (the four sentences beginning "Workers often have difficulty connecting...." seems to be replicated in the article). I do not know if other sentences or paragraphs are based on other sources, but I'm afraid that the article will need to be rewritten to address these concerns, if the AfD closes keep. Since addressing copyright concerns will not resolve other issues, I am delaying closure on the copyright to allow the AfD time to proceed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and MRG's investigation @Copyright problems and above. Very obvious cio spam. Jack Merridew 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I work on this article in my stub area? I will rewrite my article taking care of the above facts. If I do have an option, can someone help me move the article to my stub area? PCJain (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't have the time to assist you with this and I'm anyway concerned about a company writing about a new type of product; a neologism that I don't think meets Wikipedia's high standards for verifiable notability... not to mention the other problems identified above, including the verified WP:COPYVIO. Copy the page to your userspace and work on it there if you like. -- samj _in^out 20:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spamcruftvertisement. Brad 02:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of The Lepers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

another WP:NOBLECAUSE Vietnamese organisation. fails WP:ORG. 4 gnews hits for Vietnamese name [26]. hardly anything in English [27]. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I am just not seeing any evidence of notability here. It may well be that there are few secondary English sources but many in other languages - in which case, where are they? Eddie.willers (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Even searching under the Vietnamese name (and translating the respective articles), it looks like it gets mentioned a lot - in passing - as ONE of the various anti-leprosy organizations. I didn't see anything on the first page of results that was about this organization per se. David V Houston (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the news Ghits refer to a "leper colony" founded by Father Damien in Hawaii, not this more recent group from Vietnam. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 15:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmachari Subhuti[edit]

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

Reason Bluehotel (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Googling him, I see LOTS of listings of his books, but nothing in the first 2 pages about HIM. 1 passing reference from BBC. I don't even see serious book-reviews of the books. David V Houston (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 17:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 17:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, yes, i'm an idiot who forgot to actually check Books the first time he did a search for the guy. But I just did that and...wow, that's a lot of stuff. There's more than enough other books that discuss him to give him notability, easy. Silver seren^C 17:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it stands is not great, but FWBO is one of the most prominent Buddhist organizations in Britain and he is one of the most visible leaders. As noted, he is also widely published.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets mentioned enough, so he must be notable. Dream Focus 07:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging into a list can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spider chord[edit]

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

Non notable guitar technique. An IP editor told me "Non notable? There are plenty of non notable techniques on wikipedia you ain't moaning about... retard)" Cynof Gavuf 11:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several 'non-notable' techniques on Wikipedia. It is a valid technique and generally used in thrash metal, even today. A lot of guitarists still use this technique. Just because it isn't some mainstream rubbish like indie kids play, doesn't mean it isn't a well known and heavily used technique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.103.60 (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on the plus side, it's true: this is a real technique and people really do call that particular fingering "spider chord". So it passes WP:V. On the minus side, there isn't anything else to say about spider chords apart from what's already in the stub. I think that what we really ought to do is write a list called List of guitar techniques, which I'm interested to see that Wikipedia currently lacks. Then we should merge/redirect Spider chord to the newly-written list, which would allow us to keep this true and verifiable content without falling foul of WP:N.
I will contribute to the list if that's the consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - there's a video here which provides plenty of evidence that this is a real technique, and indeed shows how to do it:[28]. However, there may not be enough to say to justify having its own article, and I agree with S. Marshall that merging into a general list of guitar techniques may be better. Robofish (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe whether it is merged or kept that this technique should definitely be at least kept on Wikipedia. It is a very valid technique. Anyone questioning that is either someone who doesn't play (or at least know much) about guitar or is just someone who hovers over Wikipedia finding odd articles with little content to delete. As in the video posted by Robofish, this is a well known technique, YouTube is full of lesson videos on how to learn it and simply Googling it returns thousands of results.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or Merge if possible) This has been proven to be a real technique. If possible, it should be merged, if a space in which it would fit is indeed existent. ~BLM Platinum (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete but I will be tagging the article for WP:COI issues. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burnie Gift[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate this race is notable. Cynof Gavuf 10:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources indicate that the race is notable. [29] --Mkativerata (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a link to the website of the Tasmanian athletics league which explains the race and its importance. check link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burniegift (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 06:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 06:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is one of the major professional footraces in Tasmania. That's certainly notable enough. I've added sources as well. Silver seren^C 06:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of news coverage. Dream Focus 23:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annotea[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The only source I can find that might come close to satisfying WP:V and WP:N is this paper, part of the "Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web". It's highly cited, but I noted that the authors are part of the Annotea development team. Could not find any independent sources from reliable publications. Marasmusine (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This will become an internet standard. http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/ explains it all quite well. Google news search shows results, the first one being [30] one talking about it. Dream Focus 07:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Week Keep Nontrivial journal and book coverage/mentions. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Book and Google Scholar results look very promising. Most of them provide significant coverage, and at least some of them appear to be independent:[31][32][33][34]. — Rankiri (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was non trivial work not written by Koivunen that I was looking for. The Schroeter/Hunter/Newman paper is a possibility, but I'm never too sure about how many scholarly citations are adequate. Is 14 really enough? The book by Nagao looks fine. Marasmusine (talk)

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