< 20 February	22 February >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - mistake request and in wrong namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for new languages/Wikipedia Latin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Request for new languages/Wikipedia Latin

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

It's a request, not the thing to put in an article space. Belugaboy ^{Talk to Me!} 13:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kechi Police Department (Kansas)[edit]

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

Article fails criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) with no inherent or inherited notability. Google news produces a grand total of two results about a police dog from the department, with much of the same on the regular google search. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Kechi, Kansas - either way, doesn't matter which. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some of this may be appropriate in the town's article per WP:NCC, but not in a stand-alone article. At some point the Department may warrant its own article per WP:ORG, but not now. Novaseminary (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:Notability. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant coverage. There is no claim to notability unless one accepts that being the fastest growing Law Enforcement Agency in Sedgwick County counts. --Bejnar (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IconBuilder[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable software. Can't find any reliable, independent third-party sources to establish notability. Notability and primarysources cleanup tags have been languishing on the article since June 2009. Psychonaut (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First page of ghits had an independent review from cnet [1] and zdnet. [2] I agree such short listings re not ideal references for notability , but they are not mere advertising, for these major sites are selective in the programs they include. A GBooks search [3] shows it's discussed as the standard software for the purpose in over a dozen well-known books. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Responding specfically to DGG, my understanding of CNet and ZDNet's selectivity is that they pretty much take anything that works, is supported, and isn't malware. In any case it falls short of the intention of "editorial control" and as sites hosting the software they can hardly be considered "independent" (for example, point me to a negative CNet review for software that they host). They're also too short to be significant coverage. However, this source, this one and this one are better. This first party page is not independent but points to offline reviews in MacUser UK and IT Enquirer that would presumably also satisfy WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no such thing as independent review from cnet for commercial soft, you have been trapped by somebody. Wikipedia will not become a commercial promotion place for any closed proprietary pieces of code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkrellm (talk • contribs) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm with you on CNet not being independent, Gkrellm, but how about the OTHER sources listed above? - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If your links are supposed to prove the notability of some bad-smelling binary blob for trivial operation in graphics, made by some low-brained programmer for low-brained customers that doesn't know about millions of free and opensource alternatives, then I think that such links have nothing to do with ideas that Wikipedia was based on. Gkrellm (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If your argument is predicated on the idea that Wikipedia exists to promote open-source software in preference to commercial software, or promote high-quality software over low-quality software, then you're fundamentally misguided as to the purpose and content of Wikipedia. Please read WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT (particularly WP:SOAP). And then please enrich Wikipedia by writing articles about notable open-source alternatives to IconBuilder! If you'd like help getting started feel free to ask myself or any of the other editors on the project. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take your zealotry elsewhere. Pcap ping 09:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The CNET review is just one paragraph on a download page. Those are napkin reviews: they might be independent but they're quick takes to fill the web page space. The ZDNET page doesn't even have an editorial review, only a manufacturer's description. There's in-depth coverage on creativemac.digitalmedianet.com [4], but that appears to be an obscure online publication which doesn't even have a page/list of its staff or editorial policy. The other blogs don't count as WP:RS— there's no telling who wrote them. There are bunch of mentions in google books, but most are trivial and ad-like. There is a one page tutorial in Mac Life print and online, an old review in MacUser, and a (rater spammy) review in a publication of Future plc. There's no review in Macworld that I can find, but there are a couple of rather old news blurbs [5] [6]. Brief mention in theAppleBlog. Pcap ping 09:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigam Arora[edit]

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

I've been searching for WP:RS compliant sources and citations. I have not yet succeeded. I've stripped out non RS sources, cited the guy's book (anyone can have an ISBN and a book, so that doesn't make him notable), and cited his patent (yup, anyone can have a patent, too). He's verifiable in the same way that I'm verifiable. But he is not notable in the same way that I am not notable. Because there is an editor actively seeking to improve the article I have chosen AfD instead of the Speedy route, even though it could so easily be speedied. But I want to play fair with the effort made so far. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

*In view of the latest improvements to this article, the request for deletion should be moot. The article is completely rewritten. Most of the comments on this page are prior to rewriting of the page and addition of 34 cites, most of them of national or international scope.

When majority of comments on this page were made, there were no cites in this article.

The article meets all the requirements of Wikepedia regarding Biography of Living Persons. I request the Administrator to read the completely rewritten article and make a decision based on Wikepedia guidelines on notability and not based on consensus.If this course is not possible, please inform me the procedure for appeal.

John williams 7 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams[reply]

In my work on this article so far I have accumulated a ton of additional material and additiona cites ( not presently in the article) not only on Nigam Arora but also on power plants, change management, new systems, etc.

I plan to continue to add to Nigam Arora page as I get time and invite others to contribute to this page. I also intend to contribute the material I have found to other pages on Wikepedia and also will start new pages where appropriate.

Can someone please guide me how to write about controversies? In the literature there are fans of Nigam Arora's inventions and there are detractors. I would like to take a balanced approach by equal space to those who do not like him and and those who praise his work.

--John williams 7 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams[reply]

I started out knowing very little about Nigam Arora. After reading Nigam Arora's book on Theory ZYX, I turned to Wikipedia to find more about him. There was nothing. When a colleague of mine asked me if I knew more about Nigam Arora, I did some research and wrote a brief aricle on Wikepedia.

I had always thought of Wikepedia as a collegial place where volunteers selflessly put in lots of effort to benefit others with information. Since over years, I have benefitted from Wikepedia I thought it was now my turn to contribute.

Was I in for a big surprise? Within minutes of publishing a straigtforward article my head was bitten off. Certainly I was ignorant about Wikepedia policies, but it would been nice if experienced Wikepedians offered to help instead of intimidating me. Then I found extremely helpful people in RohnJones and Icairns; my heartful thanks to these two. Also my thanks to all those from whose work I have benefitted over the years.

The insipiration I got from RohnJones and Icairns sustained me through the next upheavel which I am hoping was the result of mis-identity.My request for cooperation was unheeded. I was again surprised that when there is a considerable evidence that someone who has a vendetta against me in REAL LIFE may be a person on Wikepedia, there appears to be no good way to clear up the issue in a civil and amicable manner. The situation is further complicated because, again to my surprise,some people on Wikepedia do not use their real identity. In any case, my apologies for harsh words,in the event of mis-identification on my part. There is no way to confirm because of fictional identities.

It would appear to me that less robust newcomers would simply quit if they face what I faced on Wikepedia in writing my first article. I almost quit, because I have nothing to gain from this article on Nigam Arora. Perhaps this is on purpose and this makes sense if Wikepedia is overpopulated with editors and newcomers are not welcome. If this is the case, I suggest to those who run Wikepedia to post a clear sign, 'NEW EDITORS ARE NOT WELCOME' Such a clear language would help other newcomers not go through the pain, abuse and intimidation I went through.

On the other hand, if new editors are welcome, I suggest to those who run Wikepedia to craft strict policies so that new comers are not subjected to abuse. Most new comers will make mistakes and will not be familiar with extensive policies of Wikepedia. What would be wrong in holding hands of newcomers, teaching them and being gentle with them when they make mistakes? Should Wikepedia decide to go in this direction, I will be glad to help and invite those in power to let me know how best I can help Wikepedia.

--John williams 7 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams[reply]

I am in the process of adding more citations and hope to do so over the next couple of weeks.
This nomination has been made by a person who has not disclosed his real identity and there is evidence that this person is motivated by a personal vendetta. I am willing to present this evidence to the administrator if this person discloses his real identity.
It is unfortunate that this person has declined my invitation to work with me to improve the page and instead has insisted on the deletion route.
I also recommend that the administrator contact Nigam Arora, the person who is the subject of this page.
In any case, I will improve the page over the next couple of weeks and I invite all volunteers to help to ensure this page meets all requirements of Wikepedia
If this person changes his mind and is willing to cooperate in good faith to improve the page, I will be glad to work with him

John williams 7 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC) John Williams[reply]

Comment I am disappointed with this editor's personal attacks and lack of civility. I commend WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to him. He has now attacked me on my talk page and here. I am no longer interacting with him. For the record, I have no idea who Nigam Arora is, nor am I the least bit interested. The article is one that fails to assert notability. It cites no reliable sources. In its current state it should not be here. If he is that passionate about creating it then user space is the place for it until such time as the subject achieves notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only hits I could find anywhere were where his company was involved in a lawsuit - no GNews hits, etc. No reliable source cites. If the author would prefer, he could work up the article in his user space - that would be the simple solution. As is, he is not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability. Additional WP:BLP concerns here since some coverage is related to the company lawsuit and as such is contentious in nature. I should note that the article's creator made an attempt[7] to make the nominator reveal their real identity, in violation of WP:OUTING. Nsk92 (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thank you for alerting the creator to the need to refrain from unpleasant behaviour. A less robust person than I am might have been intimidated, so such shots across the bows by an independent editor are important. I would like to make sure that this does not influence anyone either to !vote to delete the article or to keep it because of that behaviour. All editors make mistakes, many turn out to be a considerable asset here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I do realize that John williams 7 is a new user who might not yet be familiar with Wikipedia policies (which is why I left a warning at his talk page rather than directly report him at AN/I). However, now that he has been informed about the WP:OUTING policy, I hope he will abide by it. Nsk92 (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of evidence that he passes WP:GNG. Google news search found some court opinions mentioning his name in the case KnowledgeAZ vs Jim Walter Resources (as far as I can tell, a lawsuit over a non-compete clause), but we don't generally allow court documents as sources. Other than that, there are just a couple articles in the Indiana business journal that don't say enough about him to use as sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, since the creator wants to improve the page over the next two weeks, and add references. StAnselm (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability. Most references found are mere mentions, without substance. He may be "hot stuff" in Indianapolis, but one local blurb is not significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Most of the comments appear to be prior to rewriting of the page and addition of 34 cites. Previosly there were no cites.

The comment about only a blurb in Indianapolis is strange and not based on facts. 29 of 34 cites are of national or international scope. In addition there are several cites related to Indianapolis starting from 1987 and stretching over a long period of time.

Nigam Arora has verified record of notability across two continents over a period of at least 23 years. Certainly two continents are bigger than the city of Indianapolis alone. Perhaps honestly there is some confusion between Indanapolis and India. India is a large country in the continent of Asia and Indianapolis is a city in USA.

He founded two of the fastest companies in the USA not just Indiana. His company,Action Sytems Inc was named 29th fastest growing company in the United states, not just state of Indiana or city of Indianapolis. This company did business with over 50 nuclear plants across the globe. I just checked and found there are no nuclear plants in th state of Indiana or city of Indianapolis. As a matter of fact there are only 104 operating commercial nuclear plants in the entire country of USA.

His company Action Systems Technology was ranked 103rd fastest growing company in the United States, not in the state of Indiana.

His companies did business internationally, not just in one state of the United States.

United States Patent and Trademark Office is part of the Federal Government of the United States and not part of Indianapolis city government.

United States Patent and Trademark Office granted major patent claims to him out of Washington DC and not out of Indianapolis. It appears that United states Patent and Trademark office has no presence in the city of Indianapolis. The 28 patent claims are enforceable across the USA, not only in the city of Indianapolis and enforceable under the Federal Law. A city or state has no jurisdiction over patents: major patents are not the matter of one city .

His inventions have been used all over the world, not just in one city. I have gathered lot of material on his inventions and there use across the world.

Amazon.com , and Barnes and Noble are international organizations and not based in city of Indianapolis.

He has been called foremost expert in radiation monitoring in power plants by a magazine of international scope. Since there are no nuclear plants in Indianapolis or the state of Indiana, this activity is obviously carried out soewhere else. As a matter of fact, sources I have gathered from the library show that Nigam Arora's activities have been international in scope.

It is not believable that the city of Indianapolis has 369 municipalities if that is what a prior comment implies; Nigam Arora was the founder and CEO of the B2B exchange for 369 municipalities, at least 368 of these municipalities would have to be outside the city of Indianapolis.

There is lot more I can add to this argument and will add if an appeal is needed.

Let us not become members of the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY. Just because someone does not accept that the earth is round does not mean Wikepedia should declare the earth flat

--John williams 7 (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams[reply]

Keep

Majority of the cited sources are major publications with large circulation and national or international scope. These are available in libraries. I found them in libraries.

Subscription based sources do not show up in Google search. Older sources also do not show up in Google search. Some sources show up in Google , but the searcher will have to be dilligent to go throuh all the pages on Google not just the first few pages.

Older sources also do not show up online. International sources, especially older ones are often not on Google.

I am new to Wikepedia, but it seems strange that comments are made based solely on the first couple of pages of Google search. What happened to going to libraries, like I did for this article, and doing proper due dilligence?

What would be the point of Wikepedia if WIkepedia must be limited to first few pages of Google? In such a case Wikepedia would be redundant and there will be no point to its existence. I am new to wikepedia, so I do not know what Wikepedians want? But it seems to me the point of Wikepedia is to have well researched articles and not merely be a duplication of the first few pages of Google.

Consensus is wonderful, but it must be informed consensus. Once upon a time there was consensus that earth was flat.

I apologize if I have offended anyone, but it seems to me Wikepedia is not well served when a comment is not informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John williams 7 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been looking at the citations in the article. I do not feel that many of the citations themselves are (yet) particularly useful and have made a comment to that effect on the article's talk page giving positive suggestions. There is a huge rash of apparent citations, but these simply refer, in a great part, to journals (etc) and issue dates, but this is not, of itself, a useful citation. We need the article, the title, and ideally the author and the page number in the journal, for example, with paper media. As it stands at present I do not yet view the article as one which verifies any asserted notability. I also deny emphatically the validity of the personal attacks directed at me in much of the rhetoric above. For the record I neither know nor care who Nigam Arora is, nor do I have any idea who the editor is who is making such impassioned allegations against me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability as an author; can't evaluate him as a business person. But as an author, his only book is self-published, and its only reviews are at the Amazon and B&N websites. This is not enough to establish notability as an author and casts doubt on his notability in general. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was surprised to learn that LA Press Inc, the publisher of the book is self publishing, but the only links I can find to it or mentions of it are on Nigam Arora owned (or fan) websites. See this link. I am concerned that all this fuss is about a guy who self published the only book that is alleged to be notable in the article. The closing admin for this AfD will need to take some trouble to review the evidence presented in the article to judge whether it should remain or go. With regard to your comment on the businessman I can't see 28 patents, only one, and I can't see anything that asserts notability or, yet, verifies it. All I see are empty citations which may or may not lead to articles which assert and/or verify Arora's notability. A valid solution is to userfy the article for now and allow its recreation if sufficient and substantial citations are added correctly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only "LA Press Inc." I could find online is here, where it sounds more like a print shop than a "publisher". --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In neither case does it suggest that the book or the author is notable. Anyone can pay to have a work published and anyone can have an ISBN. Come to that anyone can register a patent, or 28 patents Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There's a large number of sources to publications which, on their own merits, are verifiable and can confer notability. That said, no effort has been made to verify any of the sources, and I'm more than a little surprised that, given the sheer number of them, that Google Scholar and all their other search libraries doesn't turn up more than a mention or two of this man. This is generally the case when the sources constitute "trivial coverage," in my experience.
Additionally, as an aside, I would counsel the article author to tone down the rhetoric in this discussion, as well as the sheer volume of postings. None of this is helping your cause. Indeed, I'm generally inclined to consider any situation in which an enormous amount of justification regarding notability is required to be a situation in which notability probably doesn't exist. I don't make a final judgment based on that, but that is an impression that exists. Just a thought! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Gaming the System and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Arbitration request has been filed in this matter. I feel as a good citizen it is my duty to give the arbitation committee an opportunity to preserve the integrity of Wikepedia. Other than privacy matters that can not be discussed here, the nominator has removed the links that disprove his point and replaced it with another link to prove his point.I have nothing to gain from this article, so I will not be posting here anymore. AS a side note, I have never claimed that this person was notable as an author. This person is notable because o his lifetime of inventions, product development and successfully commercializing of the inventions.

I encourage all to go to [8] and see for youself that the premise behind deletion that 'anyone can register a patent' is blatantly false. Patents are not registered, they are granted after a long complex process documented on the site. I also encourage all to use PAIR system on USPTO site to understand the long arduous process of 7 years for the grant of the patent in question.

I also encourage all to review Wikipedia:Gaming the system and Wikipedia:Notability (people) I would also encorage all who bother to read the two guidelines to go to the history page of this article and see for yourself how the system has been gamed, the links that show the te premise behind deletion is false have been vandalized and how the process has been abused.

Please also see how this is the second attempt by this person to delete this article, see for yourself and make your own judgement

Please also visit Revision history of Radiation monitoring in power plants, an article I had just started. The article is nominated by the same person for deletion before I even had a chance to work on it. Same pattern on the part of this person as he did Nigam Arora article by nominating it for speedy deletion when I had just started on it.

I also encourage all to visit Template:Cite news, judge for youself that ALL Essential parameters OF THE GUIDELINE HAVE BEEN MET, and an earlier comment on this page is gaming the system by falsely stating the policy. Wikipedia:Gaming the system provides a good example that parallels what is happening on this page.

In any case Wikepedians, this is good bye for now. I will no longer be posting on this page or on Wikepedia. I came to Wikepedia to help better the Wikepedia, not to engage in GAMING the SYSTEM, not for warfare, not to be abused and certainly not to give this one particular person opportunities to obssessively use Wikepedia to take revenge for what happened between him and me in real life. This person has been on Wikepedia for a while and is good at gaming the systems and bringing his buddies to back him. I have no reason to copy the behavior. My response is -- good bye.

My parting suggestion is to please be informed before commenting and also look up the paper media, for example look at INC. magazines Dec 1987. Dec 1988 and Dec 1989 issues to see rankings of Arora's companies. Please understand that GOOGLE COVERAGE BEFORE ABOUT 2002 IS VERY SPARSE.

Wikipedians, it is a bigger question of integrity of Wikepedia . It is up to you to chose between supporting gaming the system for personal revenge or supporting the best interest of Wikepedia; to choose between following the published policies of Wikepedia such as the one on Template:Cite news as well as Wikipedia:Notability (people) , and voting on this page or other pages by being bamboozled by a master gamesman such as the case here regarding the patent.

Consensus is wonderful as long as it is informed and not manipulated.

Debate is yours. I will not be here.

THanks to those who helped and apologies if I did anything wrong. I am a straight forward person and hate manipuation with a passion. Since I have nothing to gain by staying here to fight manipulation, I do not belong here.

Good Bye,

--John williams 7 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scalar field theory (pseudoscience)[edit]

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

Parochial theory advocated by one famous perpetual motion enthusiast: Thomas E. Bearden. Recognition of this idea independent of Mr. Bearden has not been forthcoming. The article itself is essentially a soapbox for these ideas. Additionally, every verifiable point about this idea is already included in his biographical article. Since there is no useful text that needs to be merged, I submit that deleting this article is all that is needed. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of this is already in blacklight power or his article,. Not to mention its poorly sourced and not notable to boot.

Comment "Most of this is already in blacklight power or his article." This is false. But ScienceApologist's assessment of Mr. Bearden with respect to "his" theory is correct.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 13:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I guess I was thinking of hydrinos. No vote from you?

Oh yes, please delete, there doesn't exist any one coherent scalar field theory, it is quackery which is quite different between the different proponents. Should be covered in the articles about the proponents. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as POV fork. Pcap ping 12:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into appropriate articles. Saved it so this can be done. J. D. Redding 15:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per WP:CRYSTAL, little significant reliable information on the album. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kanye West's 5th Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kanye West's 5th Studio Album

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

The prod was contested. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this album has not been officially announced by Kanye's record company and some information that can be presented will be classified as speculation. But much of this is fact: it's a known fact that he did state he was planning on releasing the album in June 2009, it's a known fact that he did return to the studio on January 4th, it's a known fact that Drake and Travis Barker said he was working on the album at the time and could not appear at the Grammys, and it's a known fact that he is currently working on the album in Hawaii with No I.D. and Big Sean. This is all proven through the references provided. We know that the title "Good Ass Job" is speculation, and I plan on reverting it to just "Kanye West's 5th Studio Album". Some other statements such as the Nicki Minaj and Rick Ross rumors are indeed just speculation, and I will remove them from the article. Otherwise, considering the WP:CRYSTAL policy, this album IS notable, due to the millions of Kanye West fans who wish to learn more about the album, and can use Wikipedia for this information if this article is kept intact. The album is for a fact going to be released, barring some sort of freak accident; although a 2010 release date is speculation, it is more than likely that the album will be released this year. If this article still needs to be revised so that it may remain on Wikipedia, I hope that those who are pushing for a deletion can help to edit the article to make it appropriate for Wikipedia, so that our visitors who are interested in visiting Kanye West's page looking for recent news on him may learn of this upcoming album. PittPanthers93 (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2010 (EST)

Delete - per WP:HAMMER.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Much of what is being described as "known fact" above appears to this impartial observer as speculation. Nobody is claiming that a Kanye West album isn't notable, per se, just that this one doesn't, you know, exist. Imagine the Wikipedia article that would have been written about The Beach Boys' "Smile" back in the 1960's when that album was definitely, obviously, totally going to be coming out like any month now :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Playing devil's advocate against myself, or at least against my analogy: Smile was notable well before it came out simply for the fact of its never having been released. My analogy up there may actually be an argument in favor of keeping, although I think the two situations are actually pretty dissimilar. Anyway. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources asserting there is or will be such an album. Sure there are rumours and hints, but this article isn't entitled Speculation about Kanye West's 5th Studio Album. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:HAMMERTIME. No sources contain information on the album beyond rumors/possibilities/speculation. No confirmed album title, release date or track listing -- violates WP:CRYSTAL. Gongshow ^Talk 22:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'MMA LET YOU FINISH but... delete. JBsupreme (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No tracklisting, name, release date or anything other than speculations means that (sung to Gold Digger) "she take me Wp:HAMMER and smash to pieces". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JBspupreme, I'm gonna let you finish, but MC Hammer's 5th album was totally better than Kanye West's Untitled 5th Studio album Shadowjams (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stop..... hammertime RadioFan (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my !vote is unchanged regardless of the discussion of reliable sources below. It's all speculative and there isn't enough there to write a good article on. I do agree that there are rare occasions when an unnamed album receives enough attention to warrant an article, this isn't one of them. There just aren't enough details yet. I'm sure this album will have an article once it's at least named and there are some reliable details available. We are pretty far from there right now though. Wikipedia will be just fine without yet another unnamed album article.--RadioFan (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of reliable and independent sources, well beyond those already listed. [9] [10]. For the lazy: Entertainment Weekly MTV GQ etc. This satisfies the GNG, which is the same as what is says at Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums, singles and songs. If the artist is notable, there is a strong presumption for keeping albums discussed in reliable and independent sources. Sources are the requirement; there is no need that there be a track list or a album art work to write a reliable and notable article. I don't think Hammer's law is well-suited to highly notable artists, nor does it apply to cases like this where the album title is known. Savidan 00:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources do not satisfy the notability guidleines. Quotes from your souces such as "...so that’s not a whole lot to go on...We haven’t been able to get an official update on the status of Mr. West’s next project from his label yet, but that’s no reason not to start anticipating wildly" and "What are you doing in Hawaii? Working with Kanye West on our new albums." do not represent significant coverage about the subject. There is no album being discussed, just speculation about an album. As I said above, this article isn't Speculation about Kanye West's 5th Studio Album, when we have relaible sources asserting the existence of the album prior to release, or an official announcement, then an article might be warranted, but that time is not here yet.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pontificalibus on this. The speculation and rush to create the first page, along with the generic page name is a problem that Hammer addresses, and is as useful (if not more) for high-profile artists as it is for low-profile ones. It should be disregarded when there's evidence of widespread coverage, but just because it's verifiable that it's been discussed is not the same thing as notability. Shadowjams (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Pontificalibus. More reliable sourcing doesn't change the fact that this is still all speculative. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: per Savidan —Mike Allen 08:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Savidan. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 21:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jess28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.32.120 (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are other sources cited in the article overlooked in this debate, including: Rolling Stone. In fact, buzz for a Kanye album entitled "Good Ass Job" predates even his most recent album. On lexis, I am also able to find the following (among many others):
- Vibe Magazine, February 2009
- New York Post, September 14, 2008; Pg. 46
- MX (Australia), September 9, 2008; Pg. 3
- New Musical Express, September 8, 2008
- Chicago Tribune, September 6, 2008, Pg. 15

Savidan 21:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That Rolling Stone article you gave as a source only states "West, who said he has another album coming in June [2009]". That's not a sufficient source for this article. I assume the rest of the sources you list are similar.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and wait until he has given it a name. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL; when further confirmation is made, the article can be remade. But currently, several sources are outdated. Lulz at previous comments... --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 02:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Gordon Carder[edit]

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice M. Findlay, for an article by the same creator, written in the same vein, with the same problems. Here also there is not even a hint of the person passing WP:PROF or WP:N, with the same obfuscation--for instance, in the further reading section, the suggestion that the book by Terrence Craig will contain lots of useful information about Carder. What do we find? A self-published book of Carder's is listed in the bibliography. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability presented in the article, and a Google search fails to uncover anything of substance. StAnselm (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (GregJackP (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep as per contribution to the Indian Church which is not being recognised by other racists.--Pradeep (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very worthy individual but does not seem to have made an impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alice M. Findlay[edit]

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

Person fails WP:PROF. There is no evidence of her having had a widespread influence in her field; in fact, I cannot find evidence that she is notable via WP:N in the first place. The bibliography/references looks convincing, but consider, for instance, the link to Lisa Joy Pruitt's book in the "further reading" section: a search in that book for "findlay" reveals this, which is nothing--it only mentions in its bibliography a 10-page article she wrote for the American Baptist Quarterly. Look carefully at this article, and you'll see there is no notability here. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS doesn't indicate any citations. None of the offices listed in the succession boxes are notable. The subject seems to be an ordinary professor. Not a shred of evidence of notability. StAnselm (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. (GregJackP (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - I found a single relevant GS cite and 10 (not a typo) Ghits other than junk or false hits. Less than barely notable. Bearian (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did learn from one of those GHits that the "Alice Findlay Memorial Baptist Library" at Hyderabad Baptist Church was named in her honour in 1999. Of course, this is just a church library, so it's not notable anyway. (WP:BIO used to say "The existence of a memorial... is not a substitute for depth of content in published work," before it was changed, but it's still true.) StAnselm (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per norm.--Pradeep (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not appear to establish notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Metal[edit]

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

Unsourced sub-stub dictionary definition, no sources. Term doesn't seem to be widely used. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT.RadManCF (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whole article seems to be just the personal opinion of the article's creator, which violates a myriad of WP:NOT policies. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary, which is one of the only places I cold find this mentioned. An existing slang usage, but not noteworthy, not an identifiable genre about which an article could be written -- and anyway, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 20:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be at most a dictionary entry more appropriate for Urban dictionary, seems heavily POV. PaleAqua (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete- This article is based on POV and original research. RG (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 06:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2d Or Not 2d Animation Festival[edit]

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

Prod removed without comment. Prod said, "Only sources are facebook and youtube, no secondary sources." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Currently, article has better sources, but it seems to be written in an overly promotional tone. RadManCF (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have enough sources. Does need some cleanup, did a little, and has a bit of a promotional tone as RadManCF noted. PaleAqua (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic notability established by its sources. The promotional tone is a matter for WP:CLEANUP, not deleteion. TPH, shall I be the one to do it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Promotional tone has now been removed and article has been cleaned up and sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. Its listed in Animation Magazine, the Seattle Times, and a few other places. Dream Focus 07:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 06:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steam-Con[edit]

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

Prod removed without comment. Prod said, "Sources are blogs, facebook and youtube. No secondary sources." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable, sources could be improved. RadManCF (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of hits at GNews, including NY Times and numerous other major newspaper. (GregJackP (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY as the article stands it is well sourced and, assuming all the sources check out, is readily notable. Bearian (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1888 in Germany[edit]

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

Only has two facts so should be merged into 1888 yutsi (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10. The subject is already covered entirely by Year of the Three Emperors, and this would probably not be a plausible redirect. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I contend that the article would've been a valid A10 case in its previous state, but given the changes to the article and the comments below, I now feel that the article ought to be kept. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and lack of content. RadManCF (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~comment xxxx in germany goes back currently to 2006. it would need to be built backwards from that year at least somewhat, to justify this article even as a placeholder. however, if standard policy, or consensus, tends towards keeping this and building up the list, ok.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I declined the speedy, because I do not think it was a valid use of A10, this is part of a series--that many other articles in the series have not been written yet does not matter, because we have to start somewhere. It's easily expanded, and I have done so, with 3 unrelated events, so the deletion reason is no longer valid. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the expansion done by DGG. At worst, merge into article 1880s in Germany. Lugnuts (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a "WikiAlmanac" to transwiki this to? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, there is a "WikiAlmanac". It's known as "Wikipedia", per the first of the five pillars. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is part of a series. If it should be deleted, then perhaps that should be done by admin with all such similar articles. --Mloafness (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's expansion. If broader discussion on the merits of "Year in Place" articles is warranted, we should have that discussion at the Village Pump, WT:AFD, or an RFC of some sort. We're seeing a few of these nominated each week - a few with merit, others not - and it might be worth looking at. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty added and plenty more to be added and is part of an expanding series. Keresaspa (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have pages just like that for the United States, UK, etc, why not Germany? AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War comes to willy freeman[edit]

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

Written like a 5 year olds book report. yutsi (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable, 410000 google hits, if it's not kept it should be redirected to James Lincoln Collier.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless its ~~expanded~~ improved soon. RadManCF (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you think articles should be deleted if they are of insufficient length? --

Pontificalibus (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the immediate value of the article.RadManCF (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is currently written, it presents a few random facts in a couple sentences. I find it odd that none of the facts presented here to support keeping this article are presented in the article itself. Also, see Wikipedia:An unfinished house is a real problem and Wikipedia:Don't hope the house will build itself. RadManCF (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting the book and the New York Times sources I added don't establish notability? Neither of those essays you mention are relevant as the article is both accurate and readable, and there are no valid grounds for deletion. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made those remarks before you added the references. Also, I did not say anything about notability, just that the article was short and poorly written. RadManCF (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Written like a 5 year olds book report" is not a valid criteria for deletion. Editting problems are solved through editting, not deletion. With this in mind, a speedy keep might be appropriate, as no rationale has been offered by the nominator. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-known book from famous prize-winning author. book. In over 1150 worldCat libraries, multiplee ditions from 1983 through 2002. Articles specifically about the controversy aroused by the book in the NY Times (which called it a critically acclaimed novel about blacks in the Revolutionary War, [11] & elsewhere; reviews in Chicago Tribune Washington Post, Milwaukee Journal, etc--right there in the G News search above. The G Scholar & GBook searches right there show its cited in many articles as an example. It is fairly rare to actually have these many excellent independent secondary sources apart from the reviews for a children's book. Article just needs some expansion. Another in the many examples of why WP:BEFORE should be required. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly notable, many sources available, not valid rationale for deletion offered. Edward321 (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rklawton raises some pretty good points, but the weight of consensus leans towards deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heron Santana[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP, ~~likely~~ autobiography by Abolicionista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see [12]). Guy (Help!) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note "autobiography" is not a valid reason for deletion nor is the observation that it is unsourced. The question at hand is whether or not the subject is notable and the article salvageable. Rklawton (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, being unsourced is unquestionably a reason for deletion and so is being an autobiography, hence failing WP:NPOV. Feel free to fix these things. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only good unsourced BLP is a deleted unsourced BLP.RadManCF (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - if I add a few reliable sources, then you'll change your vote? Rklawton (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. RadManCF (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In response to Rklawton, I'm not Radman but I'll definitely change my !vote if you can show evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications!! JBsupreme (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Santana brought the first successful case to court asking that a chimpanzee be recognized as a person. This fact is sourced both in Portuguese and in English along with translations of both the precedent setting filing and the judge's ruling. This accomplishment has been referenced in similar, more recent cases, and this is also sourced. I've added these sources to the article. As a result, the subject is notable, and the article salvageable. Rklawton (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badly fails WP:PROF - assisant (non-tenured) professor; brought a lawsuit about animal rights; etc. 03:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC) What I mean is that winning a lawsuit is what lawyers are supposed to do, that is not notable. Bearian (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ya missed just one thing - it's a unique lawsuit. Rklawton (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I did not miss anything: "The process of asking for a Habeas Corpus of a chimpanzee has historical precedents in Brazil, that enables chimpanzees to be treated as living beings with rights, and not only objects." [13](emphasis added). It might be novel in common law, but Brazil is civil law jurisdiction. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's the point. The process of asking for a Habeas Corpus of a chimpanzee has historical precedent specifically because of the suit filed by the subject of this biography in 2005. As a result of his win, several other suits have been filed - and they cite his case as precedent. A lawyer who wins a major precedent setting case, I would think, is notable. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But according to the English translation, the case was dismissed. I still don't understand how that can act as a precedent (under civil law). We probably need an expert in Brazilian law. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to the English translation, the case was not dismissed. It says right at the top: "In favor of: Suica" (the ape). That's why it's precedent setting. At the bottom it says "dismissed" - but that means "completed" or "disposed of" rather than "thrown out". It's not a matter one person's interpretation of "dismissed" or another's. Other sources used in the article also state quite clearly that the Santana won the suit and that the decision was precedent setting. Rklawton (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The translation is poor; in my 18 years as an attorney, "dismissed" means "plaintiff loses". Bearian (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the top of the ruling which says the plaintiff wins and all the other sources that say he won the case, I'd agree with you. Rklawton (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of notability and absence of third-party references. The legal case is not significant, because Santana did not win. The case was dismissed because of the death of the chimpanzee ("Thus, with the death of the chimpanzee, subject hereof, the Habeas Corpus has lost its purpose, its reason of being, thus ending the action... a case should be dismissed, without judging the merits, when missing the elements for valid and regular constitution and development of the proceeding... Therefore, I dismiss the case."[14]). Had the case succeeded, there would no doubt have been a flood of article in legal journals discussing the implications, which would have guaranteed notability, but that didn't happen. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "in favour" does not indicate a finding in favour of the chimpanzee, by the way, but merely that habeas corpus was being sought in favour of the chimpanzee. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clebo[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a manual yutsi (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT. article seems to be promotional. RadManCF (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. New board game, no coverage. Had spammy language. Did not squarely fit as G11, and there's no A7 for it, but the sooner it's gone, the better. Pcap ping 13:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam RadioFan (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might qualify as a speedy. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Room 10 Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record label: no third party references establish notability and used only to self-release material by one act. Fails WP:CORP. I42 (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability of companies: no sources, minimal releases for a label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, and due to reliance on myspace for sourcing. RadManCF (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you actually made the effort to read Wikipedia standards, then you would realise that: WP:QS provided that the company is proven notable by outside sources, you can use the MySpace as a source for background information necessary to properly discuss the notable aspects of the band. Blaze42 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above user has a supposed COI with The Foxes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability, single band label, could be merged with the band's site. Blogs and Myspace references only, not reliable, appears to be a COI. No signifigant coverage. (GregJackP (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. http://www.ibizastudio.com/includes/biography.inc.php Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torsten stenzel[edit]

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

Plagiarism of a user-made website, POV, bad format, etc. yutsi (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and probable lack of notability. RadManCF (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Copyvio. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to In These Black Days. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In These Black Days: A Tribute to Black Sabbath Vol. 1[edit]

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

Subject matter is covered at In These Black Days, this page adds no real useful information. No other ITBD splits have their own page. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unnecessary fork. Album isn't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with above comments. Also it appears to me that each individual volume in the series is/was not available separately. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to In These Black Days. Rlendog (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much a given, I was planning on doing that should consensus decide to delete the page. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to In These Black Days. RG (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deprodded by author after two prods. I endorsed. WP:HAMMER. Shadowjams (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete per WP:HAMMER. And once again? What's the big rush? Wikipedia will still be here when the album's closer to release. It's just a bunch of fanboys getting themselves off because they were OMGTEHFURST to get the info on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a swift blow from a crystal hammer. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER, plus the name does not follow WP:NC (whose fourth studio album is this?).--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. No confirmed album title, track listing or release date. Textbook WP:HAMMER case. Violates WP:CRYSTAL and does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 23:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. "Fourth studio album" is a ubiquitious term that could apply to ANY band or artist. Unless, of course, a band use "Fourth Studio Album" as the actual album title! Lugnuts (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and because Wikipedia isn't a dealine. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by dropping a 16 ton crystal hammer onto it, then frying it to a crisp. Salting it might not be a bad idea, too. Title is too generic to be meaningful, too, and a disambiguation page is definitely not a viable option as it is too indiscriminate. B.Wind (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move relevant content to A1_(band), redirect to same, move redirect to Fourth Studio Album (A1). Dlohcierekim 15:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above referenced AFD's have no bearing here as the articles are about entirely differnt subjects. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL --Volbeatfan (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a reliable source used to verify some of the article. It also seems clear that as a member representative of a majorinternational organization this group is notable. JodyB_talk 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lietuvos Radijo Mėgėjų Draugija[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. 2 hits in gnews [15]. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - request for deletion is another example of the risk of bias and information destruction inherent in the unwillingness of many English-mother tongue users of Wikipedia to acknowledge the importance of of foreign institutions that are not routinely reported in the Anglophone media. Opbeith (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gnews includes Lithuanian newspapers. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am a Lithuanian and I fail to see notability. Renata (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is another example of the unwillingness of many users of Wikipedia to acknowledge the importance of to provide citations to reliable sources in any language RadioFan (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the sole national member of the IARU for Lithuania, and such recognition published by the IARU establishes sufficient notability for a stub (with the IARU as a source sufficiently independent of the subject). However, if not, the decision should be Merge and Redirect to the International Amateur Radio Union article, rather than Delete, because the redirect will be necessary anyway. (Elsewhere, it's being argued that these national societies should be merged; however, I'm attempting to facilitate an overall decision on these, so as to avoid all the multiple AfDs. I asked for this AfD to be reopened because it had obviously not attracted the attention of editors with knowledge of and interest in the field. One similar AfD just closed as Keep; there remain 12 more open, including this one. It is highly likely that an exhaustive search, in local libraries or archives, or in archives of QST -- which I cannot access, but members of the ARRL can -- will come up with more independent sources, for all the national members of the IARU, which is why I recommend a blanket keep for all the national members. --Abd (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Membership of IARU should be sufficient evidence of notability. The article itself is good, and doesn't really deserve to be a stub. Dsergeant (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted under G7 SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironlinx Distribution Services[edit]

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

non notable company. Speedy removed by new editor after the original creator warned about removing speedy tag. Google has 36 hits for this company, none that show any notability noq (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we call this one G7 and all go home? The original author keeps blanking the article. The only other significant edits are from a blatant sockpuppet. Hairhorn (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delte Hairhorn is right: this is a clear speedy deletion case, whether by G7 (Author requests deletion) or by A7 (No indication of importance). There is little doubt about the sockpuppetry, and if I were an admin I would have speedy-deleted it before now. If any admin will do so that will be great. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No indication of notability and no outside referencing. Peridon (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sources listed do not present the substantial independent coverage required to establich notability, and the delete arguments are convincing. JohnCD (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansionist Party of the United States[edit]

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

Minor political party. No reliable third-party sources are included in the article, and I was unable to find significant coverage in any such sources when searching using Google. Notably, Google News comes up with nothing at all. Thus I contend that this party fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Pfainuk talk 16:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Expansionist Party of the United States does exist since 1977 and it even fronted an independent candidate for the US presidential elections in 2000 namely L. Craig Schoonmaker, who is the president of the party. There are so many US political parties that are not on the news currently, and incidentally Google News gives you only hapennings in the most recent say a month or so. If a party does not appear in a Google News search, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is insignificant. In fact most of the subjects you cover Pfainuk, in your edits are not on Google News either (for example Falklands sovereignty, Somaliland, Gibraltar, List of states with limited recognition so at least I would have expected more understanding from somebody like you on non-mainstream parties. USA being mainly a two-party system, almost all important activity by other parties does not get properly reflected. At least in Wikipedia, we are not biased towards reenforcing this two-party system of hegemony on political life. Deleting such articles including this one only helps in reenforcing the hold of the Democrats and Republicans on the system. I say deleting such articles does not serve the propagation of information well on Wikipedia. werldwayd (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)werldwayd (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you can show me some reliable sources? I would be perfectly happy to be proved wrong (I note that Google News wasn't my only search) but do not feel that your message has done so. You say he ran for President - but the party website makes it clear that this was as a write-in candidate, he having failed to make ballot access. I do not dispute that this party exists, but that's not our criterion here. We look for notability, not existence. We are not biased towards the Democrats and Republicans, but equally we should not be biased towards minor parties. We should reflect the parties as they exist. I see no evidence that this party is notable, and thus no evidence that an article is appropriate coverage for this party.

I wonder if you've actually checked Google News on the topics you list from my edit history. Because given the ongoing and current row over oil extraction in the waters around the Falklands, I am astounded that you were not able to find any coverage of Falklands sovereignty on Google News. I demonstrate: Falklands sovereignty, Somaliland recognition and Gibraltar all show up significant numbers of results. But this is beside the point. I didn't just search Google News, and I was not able to turn up any evidence that this party passes WP:GNG, in Google News or otherwise. That it exists, certainly, but not that it passes WP:GNG. If you can prove me wrong, please do. But you haven't yet. Pfainuk talk 17:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Without secondary coverage the article does not satisfy general notability for organisations. My own prefrences aside those are the facts.Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is Enough to prove notability. I dug up sources of my own icluding but not limited too This Newspaper Article, this article, a mention in a New York Times Article and also these: [16], [17], [18]. I think there is borderline enough to merit inclusion. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they can be implemented Im more than happy to change my 'weak' delete and support keepingOttawa4ever (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last two are letters to the editor and are thus not independent. The New York times reference is trivial (one sentence). The others are two brief articles in the Ottawa Citizen and one in the North Island Gazette. Three sources, all short. That leaves us with three sources: a North Island Gazette opinion piece from 1990 and two brief articles in the Ottawa Citizen from 1977. All of them give roughly the same information, and what extra information is given in one but not the others - polling data and suchlike - is out of date.

My own view of the general notability guideline is that we should not have an article if there is no way that that article can possibly be policy-compliant. In my judgement, it is not possible to write a policy-compliant article on this party based on these sources: the article is still going to be primarily based on self-published sources in violation of WP:SELFPUB. Thus I maintain my position. Pfainuk talk 20:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly the issue (at least my view), you can find sources, but can they be implemented into the article? If they can, great keep, If they cant well then you have to go by the policy for deletion based on lack of secondary sourcing.Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snippet in a book here. Fences&Windows 00:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO that source is trivial: two sentences in a book of over 300 pages, plus an address which may well be out of date (the book is from 1993). This source does not change my opinion that a policy-compliant article is impossible based on the sources available. Pfainuk talk 18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Citations prove it notable enough. Torquemama007 (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the last source, the snippet from a book, states the party is "notable for nothing, if not eccentricity". Does that count for notability? Could interpret that in many ways. Bottom line is if you think the article should be kept with these sources, implement them, source the article, but can these sources do that forthis article?.Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If sourcing is an issue then it would be a good idea to contact the Party to ask if it is aware of any coverage in independent third-party sources. Many small parties keep records of such coverage. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absent anything like WP:RS coverage I was thinking it should go however the thing that tipped me over the edge was the sentence in the article "is not officially registered in the United States" - if that is the case and it is infant not registered it has to show with lots of coverage that it is notable and it does not. Codf1977 (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This "party" seems to exist only in the mind of one man, Craig Schoonmaker (its founder, president, presidential candidate, etc.). In the only newspaper article cited here, the one from the Ottawa Citizen, Schoonmaker is described as "the self-styled chairman of the Expansionist Party of the United States". That article further notes that "there are no XP chapters; there are no party officials except himself; there is no organizing committee". Does that sound notable to you? As for the New York Times article cited here, it is an article about the large number of obscure organizations to be found in the United States, so that it cites the XP in the company of groups like the Vampire Research Center and the Ampersand Singles Club. Even the party webpage seems to migrate from host to host and is currently (since last October) in transition. And here's a gem: the application for membership in the party, which people can print off and mail to Mr. Schoonmaker. Enclose money please, and make it payable to Mr. Schoonmaker personally, since the "party" does not even have a bank account! --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Olympiad in Informatics Training Camp[edit]

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

Despite its name, this is a training camp for just for Indian students. Not obviously notable. The equivalent math camp will almost certainly get deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India at the International Mathematical Olympiad. There isn't much encyclopedic material here. The camp schedule etc. changes from year to year, I'm sure. Pcap ping 16:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources; no apparent signs of significant WP:RS coverage in Google search results: [19],[20], etc. — Rankiri (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The citations are all to IARCS (Indian Association for Research in Computing Science), except for two identifications of outside organizations that don't mention the topic at all. IARCS supports the Indian team to the International Olympiad in Informatics. However, even though it is a related source, none of the citations to IARCS mention the training camp. So it seems that the camp has no citations in the article. To be fair I did find a number of mentions of the training camp on the IARCS site that weren't cited, such as "Training Camp for International Olympiad in Informatics, 2002"; however, they are all news releases from a related organization. It is also mentioned in passing at iitscholars.com's "About Olympiads". I found no mention of the training camp in secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There has been a merge tag on this article since 2007. But I really don't see a lot of material that needs to be kept. Most of it reads like information that would be sent to participants. StAnselm (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalEDGE Tech Prep[edit]

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

Many issues, would need a fundamental rewrite. No references provided. Bit of an advert -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 04:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 14 February 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) 16:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the issues raised by the nominator, it is evident that this subject fails our general notability guideline. The consortium in question is a relatively local program that does not appear to have been covered significantly in reliable sources. This, a Dallas Morning News article from 1998, is the only Google news hit, and that sort of minor local-news filler piece is certainly not enough to establish notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Moreover, Wikipedia is not for promotion, and this article is written with a promotional tone throughout; it reminds me of a brochure. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The Dallas Morning News has written multiple pieces on the Global EDGE Tech Prep Consortium (see here). There are other sources strewn about that we would have to pay for access to. Bad article quality isn't a deletion reason (e.g. stubify). Blurpeace 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few mentions in The Dallas Morning News does not equate to significant or widespread coverage about the subject. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen two other news sources write on them, and The Dallas Morning News isn't writing passing mentions, rather entire stories. Also, see this. Blurpeace 23:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of the The Dallas Morning News coverage, there were a couple of "press release" style articles back in 1998 when this was started, but nothing significant since then. In light of the book result you showed, it might be worth a redirect to Collin County Community College District and a mention there. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Pontificalibus. Reading the Morning News articles, I find it difficult to call them "significant coverage." Those articles that aren't press release-style short takes are just tangential mentions. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Collin College or just delete. Only one source covered it, Dallas Morning News, which is of local interest only; fails WP:ORG. It's also hosted on the college's web site, so hardly independent. Pcap ping 12:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tsukuri[edit]

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

This is a minor supervillain with only one major appearance and two cameos. Joe Chill (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Joe only one major apperance, not notable enough. CTJF83 chat 05:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 14 February 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) 16:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pcap ping 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Betting exchange. to Betting exchange, per Col Warden. wedelete copyvio from the active encyclopedia, but not from the history unless there is a complain DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matched betting[edit]

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

No attempt at sourcing. Reliable sources are unlikely to exist. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Betting exchange. The current page is very similar to http://www.matchedbetting.co.uk/guide.html and may be a copyvio or advertising. The only really reliable source I can find for the term (http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbs/wpaper/2004-5.html) suggests that it can be used as a synonym for 'betting exchange', so suggest redirecting there. Pburka (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the term there is a different thing - that describes sites such as Betfair where bets are matched by software - one user wants to offer certain odds, and the other accepts those odds. This OTOH, describes the practice of taking a bonus from a bookmaker and then locking in a profit by betting the reverse at another site (which might be a betting exchange but need not be - the source of this article is not the matching, but the bonus). I would just Delete., if anything this belongs with bookmaker, but that doesn't include a mention of any bonuses, so it won't be very useful to redirect there either. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that what is described in this article is not a betting exchange. I'm not suggesting a merge. But there is at least one reliable source indicating that "Matched betting" is also used to describe an exchange, so I suggest a redirect once this content is deleted. Pburka (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 14 February 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) 16:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no redirect. The term is not notable nor unambiguous enough for a redirect. The article itself is undocumented and is a direct copy of and appears to be a copyright violation of "Loadsabets". --Bejnar (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Betting exchange. No deletion is required for this and as we don't have any content currently, I have done this. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with history deleted (I've undone the redirect for now as the AfD is still ongoing). There is a chunk of copyvio (the example) but it's not a wholesale copypasta. Pcap ping 13:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 09:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Rogers' USA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Will Rogers' USA

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

I can't even find anything on this, let alone RSs. Ipatrol (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a reasonably notable play. See [21], [22], [23], [24], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 00:31, 15 February 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) 16:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep noted in many reliable sources. I have added some of them to the article. --Bejnar (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep now that the sources have been added. Notable play, widely produced; Whitmore performed in this play on and off for some 30 years, and as noted in Whitmore's obits, Will Rogers became one of the three real-life characters with whom Whitmore was closely identified. (Here's his L.A. Times obit to add to the others [25]; it discusses how he got involved with this production as his first one-man show) and mentions that his costume is now at the Smithsonian. Also see this interesting article at the Will Rogers Museum website [26]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC) slightly revised 23:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pyromania (Cascada song)[edit]

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

Unreleased single from an unreleased album. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Lacks references to 3rd party sources. No indication that this song meets WP:NSONGS. Might be notable once it charts but not today. Contested redirect. RadioFan (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only reason people know about it is because it was announced as a new song and was leaked. There are absolutely no sources besides forum speculation in regards to remixes, release dates, album, etc. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. The song is now officially released as airplay and the music video is out, however, sources are still lacking and notability might be the only problem as of right now. I'm sure in a few more weeks it will certainly pass. The question is is it worth it to delete it only to recreate it very soon? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated above. Mister sparky (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There have been a number of references added recently but the reliability of these references is not clear. They appear to be web forums, blogs or similar primary sources RadioFan (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All Cascada singles have their own articles or sections. Removing this article and creating a new one when it is released in the near future is in my head a stupid idea (I mean, March 19^þ is not far away). One of the first hits I got on Google was a page which offers a download link, track list and album art. This probably means that a promo is released (and a promo is just a limited version of a single, ergo the single is not unreleased?). Removing the article will also break the chain of links under 'Cascada Singles Chronology' in the Infobox. The YouTube video has got more than 200.000 views in three days - why would not it make it to the charts? 83.109.100.10 (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may make the charts, it may not. We dont have a crystal ball to tell us. Notability guidelines are very clear and very restrictive for songs. If it does make the charts, the article can be recreated. The converse question needs to be asked as well, how can we be sure it will make the charts? Is there something about this band or this song that would make it appropriate to bypass Wikipedia policy? How does it differ from all the other artists and their songs that have to meet the same policy?--RadioFan (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I totally agree with the above and, considering that the youtube music video already has 108k views already, I think it's just a waste of time deleting it. You're only going to make it again! --Ben10Joshua (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the outcome is delete, the article can be protected to prevent recreation until it can meet WP:NSONGS.--RadioFan (talk) 15:57, 21 February 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) 16:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and have them do a non-forecasting article when it is time. --Bejnar (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, with no prejudice against recreation when (if) it eventually passes WP:NSONGS.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow banking[edit]

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

This has been around for four years but appears to be WP:OR, or at best a personal essay on the subject. If the subject is genuinely significant then it needs a complete rewrite to make it compliant with policy and to remove the original research elements such as citing the "early thought leaders" to their own Google sites. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are still a lots of news references waiting to be added on to it. Minima c (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Narrow Banking is a widely-known and notable concept, and is currently big in financial reform circles, having been proposed by Barack Obama amongst others. There are also plenty of notable refs, eg - [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. It does need work, yes, but not deletion -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "work" I think you mean a complete rewrite to remove the personal essay character and the blatant WP:OR, yes? Please feel free to do that. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no obligation on me to do the work myself in order to voice my opinion that the article should not be deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs a rewrite and decent in-line citation. --Bejnar (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Barr[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO - no info found in reliable sources - Addionne (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I did a quick google and added some references. The subject is a member of a number of notable bands and has a solo career. Also, the article was moved from a proposed deletion to afd in less than 48 hours rather than the usual 7 days. What's the rush? Strobilus (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prod doesn't mean "this article goes to AFD in seven days"; it means "this article gets deleted in seven days if the notice isn't removed". There's no minimum waiting period on escalating a prod to AFD when someone disputes it. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; article is almost entirely blogsourced. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 18 February 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) 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a member of two notable bands (The Slip (band), Surprise Me Mr. Davis), meets WP:MUSICBIO: Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article. Try a news search, sources exist; see also WP:BEFORE, #9 in particular. Wine Guy~Talk 08:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a lot of work, but I have to agree with both Strobilus and Wine Guy. We've not got references in State of Mind, Slant, Allmusic, and State of Mind, and he's a member of two notable bands. Bartledan (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wine Guy and the two notable bands guideline --Joe Decker (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, apparently meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR, so people say. An assembler, and for Coleco Adam too? Now there's a blast from the past. Things just ain't like what they used to be, thankfully. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Hyde[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. ~~Unreferenced.~~ Pcap ping 09:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. GS cites 38, 25, 17, 21, 5 h index = 5. Not at wp:Prof #1 yet. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or Merge. There are no reliable sources covering him. For those searching, he goes by "Randy Hyde". If the Lazer's Interactive Symbolic Assembler article is kept, then this article should be merged to it. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazer's Interactive Symbolic Assembler was withdrawn by the nominator. As such, I think merging some of this material there would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - We also have High Level Assembly from him. But what exactly do you propose we merge? This bio article mentions the two products followed by his academic resumé, which has little relevance to either article. The HAL article already says "it was originally conceived as a tool to teach assembly language programming at the college/university level." Perhaps we can add at which universities, but that's about it. Pcap ping 15:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, information about his specialty being assemblers and compilers as part of a mini bio included in the Lisa or HAL article wouldn't be irrelevant. I'm not advocating taking the entire article and dumping it in as a section. If others feel HAL would be a better placement for the information, I wouldn't object. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (do not merge). Several notable accomplishments that should be kept in one bio, not scattered over articles for various software (with links form software articles to bio, of course). LotLE×talk 19:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added several references (please check to see if further citations are needed). Notable in history of computing. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We obviously have different opinion on WP:GNG because all of those are the usual short blurbs either from within articles he had written, e.g. for Dr Dobb's, [34] or catalog author entries, e.g. on O'Reilly's web site. [35] I don't think that just about everyone that wrote an O'Reilly book qualifies by the current WP:AUTHOR guidelines. I don't see any source saying he is notable in the history of computing; this seems to be your opinion. Pcap ping 06:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I said that poorly! Yes, notability still needs to be established. I added citations verifying portions of the text, not citations explicitly supporting my opinion that he's notable. I thought this was worth mentioning because "Unreferenced" is part of the nomination. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the clarification. I struck that part of the nomination. Good job adding references. Pcap ping 18:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. JBsupreme (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some more of his accomplishments to the article, could you please take another look? Hyde was involved with several early consumer computer systems, and founded a company which put out software for several of these systems. He was also a programmer on a game released by Warner Brothers. Everything pre-'90's is a bit hard to source online so please take a look at the sources and comment on anything that need re-sourcing. It could also use some copyediting! :) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, the additions are all about software he wrote for the Coleco ADAM while running Lazerware (which also produced the Lisa assembler, but that info was already in the article). I'm not sure how this changes the picture. It requires judgment that his works qualify for WP:AUTHOR, but I don't see the references saying that his software was a significant innovation in some way. HLA is somewhat unique in design, but not really successful. YMMV. Pcap ping 22:25, 12 February 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) 21:04, 14 February 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) 16:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge. May qualify as author. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Xxanthippe is right: qualifies as author, not under WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Nsk92 (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aewm[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable window manager. Can't find any independent third-party reliable sources establishing notability. Psychonaut (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable, unreferenced RadioFan (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Can find a wee bit more mentions of this than for Evilwm, but equally trivial. Pcap ping 18:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 01:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This WM not so popupar, but it must be saved as historical information about EWMH and EvilWM evolution. iorlas (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Iorlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The article is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. You're welcome to make a copy of the article and put it on your own web page, where you can ensure it shall never be lost to history. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This one has a bit of coverage in a round-up [36] in Linux Format (full text requires subscription). Pcap ping 06:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing in any reliable source indicating notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nominator has "voted" to keep and there are no outstanding delete "votes". Eluchil404 (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wmii[edit]

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

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

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

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

Aparently non-notable window manager. Can't find any independent third-party reliable sources establishing notability. Notability/primarysources tags have been languishing on the article for months. Psychonaut (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This one is more notable [37] in Linux Magazine, which also has coverage [38] of its predecessor WMI (window manager), which redirects here, and also in a round-up [39] in Linux Format (full text requires subscription). Pcap ping 22:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Awesome, Rat, Ion, wmii and dwm are very important window managers. This software implements a revolutionary methods of human-computer interaction. Each of these window managers has unique properties and are worth of articles in the wiki. Stop the Psychonaut, vandal, who marks all the articles about tile managers to delete!Ingwar-k (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Ingwar-k (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Nothing to say. +1 to Pcap comment. iorlas (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Iorlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. This manager always noticed with dwm cause it have the same author. Evidentially it is notable enough in Linux Community. For example there is an article in well-known IT recourse in runet: [40]. Gkrellm (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Gkrellm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Thanks for the reference. For the benefit of those of us who aren't familiar with the article's source and who don't speak Russian, could you tell us a bit more about it, and more specifically indicate whether it constitutes a reliable source? Please do so at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Habrahabr.ru. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The wmii is available in all major Linux distros. It has pretty solid community. And yes the project is not so popular as Gnome or Kde. But popularity doesn't equal to notability, does it? 77.35.27.153 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — 77.35.27.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Meatpuppetry Notice. From http://www.linux.org.ru/forum/talks/4580222 (translation): Article about dwm in wikipedia set for removal . . . Proposed Strategy for Action: After registration MUST write at least a couple of lines on his personal profile. To do this, click on the name of its Nick at upper right. It is necessary that nickname in the discussion are not highlighted in red, a sign of very fresh registrant. This adds weight to arguments . . . PS die removal also hangs over Wmii, QVWM, and many other opensource-software.

If you're a linux.org.ru user about to "add weight to the argument" using the above suggestion, please note that what you're about to do is considered highly inappropriate. More importantly, you should know that this issue will not be settled by a simple majority vote. If no reliable sources for this software are found, it really doesn't matter If the color of your nickname is red or blue. See WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. — Rankiri (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment about color. But please tell me what does your link have common with meatpuppetry? Please read the translation carefully, see quote: "We must earnestly and energetically present arguments in favor of the weight of the article and the popularity of dwm. Carefully appends at the bottom of the comment." Please keep in mind that people here write their own opinions and they are not joint by family or subordination relationships. So I insist that you delete Meatpuppetry Notice or present due arguments. I wait for response. Mclaudt (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, and WP:CANVASS as suggested by Rankiri? It seems those answer your questions pretty clearly. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. And you didn't present any prof of Meatpuppetry so I insist that you delete this notice. This is wide resonance (cause deleting a dwm suggests the incompetence of editors) and this is not Meatpuppetry cause each new editor presents his own proofs and links, as noticed and cited above. Mclaudt (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you? Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. When you, the author that comment, asked people to vote keep in order to "put in place illiterate morons who wrecked his selfless work of enthusiasts, and to defend this strategically important area.", you violated that policy. — Rankiri (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nico Golde wrote an article in German Linux User magazine 1/2006 in Wimp ist tot, I also gave various talk about wmii. The Web is full of blog posts about wmii, see Google blogsearch results for example. Anselmgarbe (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like the German version of the English article mentioned by Pcap: translation. Also, self-published sources like personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, tweets, and so on are generally not acceptable as reliable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage by Linux User and this Russian magazine (page 22; use Google Translate) seems sufficient. — Rankiri (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to Anselmgarbe for finally providing the Linux User article, which establishes notability according to our policy. No thanks to the parade of meat puppets from linux.org.ru who flooded this page with impassioned but irrelevant arguments. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of notability of free software is one of the most important in Wikipedia and is still under development. So each deletion that produces a wide resonance suggests that there is a lot of work to do for complete consistency of WP:N. So you should be glad of increasing of specialists in that theme. Please read Notability of free open source software. Mclaudt (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I realise that observing notability of niche software is difficult, however wmii is one of the "standards" in the tiling WM world, has been mentioned in major publications and is more notable than a lot of other niche software that would never in a million years be considered AfD. 212.225.117.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are numerous sources found through a quick nexis search. We will keep and clean it. JodyB_talk 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A Adeogun-Phillips[edit]

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

This is a biography that appears to be well sourced but in fact is largely promotional and many of the sources (e.g. [41]) do not even mention the subject. It is autobiographical by Charlesadeogunphillips (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose only contributions are to this, an article on his company Charles Anthony (Lawyers) LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (G11'd) and an article on his father. Google finds fewer than 100 unique pages and almost all of them appear to be directory pages, often containing largely the same text though not obviously mirrors (so independently submitted). The term "internationally renowned genocide and war crimes prosecutor" is present in all such cases. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Speedy Delete (G11), then rebuild from scratch. It's intended solely as a vanity page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep/Keep Some of it is over general & promotional, but if the material in paragraphs 2 through 8 of section 3 is correct (the African trials) then he is notable for them if his role was indeed as specified. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the sources for this appear to be the subject and author. Other cited sources in the article don't even mention the subject. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep , charles Adeogun-Phillips is a gencoide prosecutor. There are not many people like him in the world. There has not been a gencoide in the world since the Holoccust. Genocide is the crime of crimes, and he has prosecuted several international trials. Clearly there cannot be many like him. The trials are not African trials, rather they are International trials that have contributed to the develoment of international criminal law.

KEEP , May be article way too intellectual for the average reader, but it is, what it is. 04:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A MUST KEEP , To describe this as vanity page is an insult to the million Tutsi who were killed during the Rwanda Genocide. What is so vain about this article? the fact that it concerns the acheivements of a British born African man who is proud to claim his African roots?

STRONG KEEP , is Charles A Adeogun-Phillips any different from the following well documented Nuremberg prosecutors? Robert Jackson, Sir Hartley Shawcross, Francois de Menthon or Henry T. King, Jr. Is the holocaust more relevant or important than the Rwandan genocide in 1994?

KEEP , What makes American and Britons genocide prosecutors more renowned than Adeogun-Phillips?? His African roots heritage?

KEEP , Can anyone contradict anything in this article or biographphy? How is the entry for Charles Adeogun-Phillips any different for that of Sir Hartley Shawcross, that of Robert Jackson or Francois de Menthon? Perhaps his colour and race?

Off course a must KEEP , Why is it that a Blackman has to struggle for recognition even in the face of such obvious international achievements?

KEEP , please save us all this embrassment and close this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.204.66.185 (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and scrub. Article is full of WP:PUFF and WP:SYN, and needs a lot of clean-up, but appears to be notable and easily sourced once you omit the middle initial. NB that all those "KEEP"s above are from a single SPA who isn't fooling anybody (I've never seen someone try to sock from a single account), but don't let that disruption prejudice you. I'll leave it to others to factor out that nonsense. THF (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - seems notable, but obviously article is full of crap. Nonetheless, witness Jim Al-Khalili, started as a bit of a vanity page by one of the finest quantum physicists (I think that's what he does) in the world. The subject/author is truly notable and, with some help, he's made it into a decent article. I think that, if sources could be found, this too could end up like this.--Vox Humana 8' 03:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (G11), then rebuild from scratch. I don't think it's necessarily intended to deceive anyone, but the degree of WP:PUFF and WP:SYN is very high. His achievements appear notable from the (genuine) citations I can see, and I can vouch for his personal integrity having been at school with him in the UK. --gilgongo (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're not too concerned about his personal integrity - and even if we were, we'd need reliable sources stating it. I think perhaps the best course of action is as you say, however - delete it, then wait till someone unrelated to the subject recreates it properly. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. This can be revisited if/when the larger issue is resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidad and Tobago Amateur Radio Society[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit [42]. those wanting to keep, provide actual evidence of significant coverage. simply voting keep is insufficient. LibStar (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of a series of these AfDs, all raising the same issue that may have been resolved three years ago. I've asked the nominator to hold off on filing any more of these until we have a consensus on the basic question: how to handle individual national member associations for a notable international organization: as a list in the international article, as a separate list article (which exists), or as stubs, or a combination (the status quo). A single coherent decision should be made and the decision requires more consideration than the simple notability of each individual national member society. --Abd (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clearer, I hope, the basis for the notability of this society is at WP:CLUB. It is a national organization, explicitly, the IARU only recognizes national organizations, one per nation. And the default source of verifiable and reliable information (sufficient for a stub) about the national society is the IARU, which is independent of the national society (as any large membership organization is independent of an individual member). In addition, the ARRL manages the IARU and is completely independent. Recognition by the IARU, which is unique per nation, is the basic "notice" that establishes notability. --Abd (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. This is not the proper forum for making the type of decision that Abd requests. Abd did leave out one option, which is not to have non-notable members of the notable international organization appear anywhere in the Wikipedia. I would think that the best result that Abd could hope for would be the list. --Bejnar (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, possible, but that will require a shift in consensus. Please see WP:CLUB and all the other current AfDs for these members of the organization, there are at least a dozen. In particular, notice Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. This should occur as a top down process. I have no personal attachment to these articles. The decision to split to stubs was apparently made years ago. Certainly it can be reviewed, but it should be reviewed top down, not article by article. I'm making no claim of separate notability, but rather of overall efficiency in project organization and access.--Abd (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Abd referenced: WP:CLUB Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included. So this, by the standard cited by the keeper, suggests that delete is proper. --Bejnar (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a misunderstanding here, and others have made the same mistake. The Trinidad and Tobago Amateur Radio Society is not an "individual chapter." It is a national society. Most of these national organizations recognized by the IARU have affiliated chapters or local clubs, and that is what the guideline is talking about. National organizations are more generally notable by the guideline. My comment above may have been a little misleading, because it implied "local chapter." I was reasoning analogously. Neither is the IARU a "parent organization." Many (most?) of the national member societies predate the formation of the IARU. They formed it, not the other way around. However, we may consider the IARU article a "parent article," because if the information on these national member societies isn't in their own articles or stubs, it will be in the IARU article, or in an associated List article. --Abd (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I used to be a member of the Trinidad and Tobago Amateur Radio Society and it is indeed NOT an "Individual chapter." It is the National amateur radio society of Trinidad and Tobago. IARU affiliation is just that - affiliation. TTARS is completely independent of the IARU. Ryan (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The history of TTARS also shows that it is an independent society [43]. Ryan (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the relationship between the IARU and member societies - think of the IARU as the UN of Amateur Radio, and national societies as individual member states. Each national society is independent, yet they cooperate internationally through the IARU. Ryan (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per previous comments. Membership of IARU should be adequate for notability purposes. This one is not even a stub, but a full blown and long article which should tell anybody that the national amateur radio society in Trinidad and Tobago really exists... Dsergeant (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep all but redirect/merge some. There seems to be some discrepancy regarding which are notable enough for stand alone articles and which are not, that can be discussed on the individual character's talk pages. Clearly, there is no consensus to delete these. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbecue (G.I. Joe)[edit]

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

Since people in this [44] are complaining that not enough characters are being nominated I figured I would bunch them together and start nominating groups. Non-notable GIJoe characters:

None of them have any real coverage except for plot info from comics. Most of them are barely more then a stub. Before people complain, yes I know there are tons of bad GIJoe articles out there. Yes I think they all need to be dealt with. Yes I am working my way alphabetically through Category:G.I._Joe_characters. None of that is a reason to keep, please avoid these arguments. Thank you. Ridernyc (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero, as they do not have real-life notability outside this franchise (whereas G.I. Joe iteslf does). Or improve the list at List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters by a merge and redirect to there, per Cerebellum and 70.80.234.196 pablo_hablo. 13:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)edited pablo_hablo. 22:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you have appeared to take my request for clarification as a form of some kind of complaint. I have made it quite clear that, personally, I have no vested interest in any of the articles. Anyway, that being said, merge. With that being said I suggest we redirect all - something I would have voted had the intentions of the AfD been made more clear. -WarthogDemon 14:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a G.I. Joe fan and I do not feel like I can offer an objective opinion, but here is my take, from a pure notability angle. Let's look at WP:N. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. If we are restricting ourselves to independent coverage, meaning the Marvel comics don't count, there are three main sources of information for G.I. Joe characters that I am aware of: Yojoe.com, which has information on the toys themselves and scans of the file cards, Myuselessknowledge.com, which has information on the characters as they are in the comic books, Mark W. Bellomo's book Ultimate Guide to G.I. Joe 1982-1994. This book is not available online, and is not currently used in any G.I. Joe articles, but I have read it in print and it is a directory of G.I. Joes that has an image of each figure along with a brief biography summarizing personality traits, out-of-universe background material, and sometimes a sentence or two on the comic book version. Basically, just the sort of information we want.

Now, the two websites count as providing significant independent coverage, but they do not, in my opinion, meet WP:RS. I support their use as sources in the articles because I have personally always found them to be accurate and reliable, but they have little value in an AFD debate.

The third source, the book, meets all three criteria (significant coverage, independent, reliable), but WP:N also states that "Multiple sources are generally expected," so we're not out of the woods yet. It comes down to community consensus: if an article has one source that meets RS and two that do not, do we keep it or don't we? I myself am not sure. Of course, none of the articles under discussion here use this book as a source; I myself no longer have access to it, but if someone who does could add references to these articles, that would go a long way towards establishing notability.

However, we may be able to avoid the issue altogether, because those three sources are not the only sources out there.

James DeSimone has authored several guides to G.I. Joe figures that bear looking at, and Tomart Publications has also put a few: Tomarts Encyclopedia & Price Guide to Action Figure Collectibles, Vol. 1: A-Team Thru G.I.Joe and Tomart's Price Guide to G.I. Joe Collectibles. There is also the Complete Encyclopedia to G.I. Joe, but I understand that it deals mostly with 12-inch Joes. I do not have access to any of these, so maybe someone who does could tell use if they have any use here?

A more character-oriented work, as opposed to toy-oriented, is Pablo Hidalgo's G.I. Joe Vs. Cobra: The Essential Guide. Again, I haven't read it, and I don't know how comprehensive it is, but at least it should help us with the most well-known characters.

If anyone knows of any other sources, please post them.

I've put a lot of work into these articles, so naturally I hope they get kept. However, I realize that that may not happen. Perhaps the most likely outcome is a compromise, something like what happened with the Pokemon articles: keep the most significant, like Jigglypuff and Pikachu, or Snake-Eyes, Scarlett, Duke and the other big-shots in the case of G.I. Joe, and merge the others into a list. If we go that route, it should be more than what currently exists at List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. It should be something more like what exists at List of Pokémon (1–20), with a brief description of each character. Cerebellum (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject G.I. Joe Cerebellum (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ALL All characters would be listed in books about collectible toys. The Barbecue article is quite well done. If a toy wasn't popular-didn't sell well, then it wouldn't be released again in newer toy lines. Notable appearances in various comic book series, cartoons, games, and whatnot, also adds to their notability. Nothing gained by deleting it, since if you aren't interested in it you wouldn't ever find it anyway. Dream Focus 21:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying in AfDs that "if you aren't interested you wouldn't find it anyway". That's balls, particularly here, where each of these dolls has a name which has a primary use outside the toyshop. pablo_hablo. 21:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't find them without looking for "G.I. Joe)" in the search, you otherwise finding something else. Dream Focus 21:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said: balls. You can't predict how people will search - we attempt to sometimes by creating redirects, but it's not an exact science.
That aside, I still don't see the logic of "you wouldn't find it unless you're looking for it" as an inclusion criterion. Is it documented anywhere? pablo_hablo. 22:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does this [45] have to do with anything? There are 2,944 results for Barbecue when someone searches for it. Do you want to erase all but the first one? The one for the G.I.Joe character appears 5th on the list of search results and has (G.I.Joe) next the name, and a summary description telling you its a character from that series. No one would be confused, and click their way to the article without meaning to. Dream Focus 07:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found four results easily in Google book search. [46] Two are just listing all G.I. Joe characters, but the next two are for toy collectors, listing only notable toys. Schroeder's Collectible Toys: Antique to Modern Guide and Sharon Huxford, Bob Huxford - Antiques & Collectibles - 1995. Dream Focus 21:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listed in several phone books, can I also have an article. These directories of every character do nothing to establish notability of individual characters. Ridernyc (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A phone book is different than being listed in a book published to show all the notable toys. Those two books count as reliable third party references. Dream Focus 07:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not listing the notable toys, it's listing any GIJoe ever made, in other words a directory. Stop saying they only list notable toys. Ridernyc (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the last two results I mention list all notable toys, not every single toy ever made, and most of their content is not G.I. Joe related. Dream Focus 10:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero - per WP:FICT/WP:N. Alternatively, merge all into a single list article.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all~~ Unfortunately listifying things is how we're circumventing notability these days... so redirect all to the trivial list. JBsupreme (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge adequately. The one sentence per character list is not enough & at the present state of things there is no way to ensure adequate coverage except to keep. It shouldnt be necessary, for good combination articles would do, but they are continually whittled down, & some apparently don;t accept them in principal as a way of handling relative minor material unless they are notable enough for an individual article. I'm not sure what JB means-- does he mean that we are circumventing notability by mentioning them at all even in a list, or that we are avoiding making articles by just reducing them to a list? Either way, he;s wrong. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per DGG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Airtight and Barbecue for sure - major characters in a major series, both with plenty of "other media" appearances. Keep or Merge/redirect the rest per DGG; they each have "other media" appearances, but probably have less potential. BOZ (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change Ambush to Keep only - the character is even getting mention in obituaries for the actor who portrayed him in the cartoon, Andrew Koenig. Change Backblast to Keep only as well; aside from a few comics appearances and a cameo in the cartoon, he was also a playable character in a recent video game. Airwave, Altitude, and Back-Stop I would prefer Keep, but like I say they have less potential so Merge would be acceptable if necessary. BOZ (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As seen above in this discussion, there are plenty of third party sources about the vast swath of the G.I.Joe universe. Give people a chance to incorporate these sources please. Furthermore, the obscure guys aren't quite as. Many have made many appearances in the cartoons; some have been repainted and re-imagined for conventions. Others have had new releases for the movie despite not actually appearing in said movie. All arguments for keeping, IMHO Lots42 (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To add to my comment above, please see this. http://www.yojoe.com/archive/collectorbooks/ Information about the many, many third party publications that talk about G.I.Joe. 07:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to the list of characters. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really dislike these mass deletions. Major character in the series, alternative, merge. Okip 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, major character? Ridernyc (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Follows Punishment (film)[edit]

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

Film is not notable, with only one verifiable and reliable source which really isn't informative.

This article was created by the same editor who created an article on another movie by the same director so clearly using Wikipedia to promote the small film. Bidgee (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy to author if requested, Userfy to the author or Incubate until such time as this recent release receives more coverage and article can be better sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to them, the film was released in April 2009, plenty of time for coverage but it hasn't received any and is unlikely to. Bidgee (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even search engines specific to Australian cinema show difficulty due to the film's title being a phrase used in many other articles totally unrelated to any specific film. Userfication allows the author time to offer the Australian sources. If he wants the article to be in mainspace, he has the motivation perhaps to then find sources... and the project is improved. If he does not, Wikipedia will have lost nothing more than the few seconds needed to do the move. And yes... I have already opined about the other article from the author being premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Michael, given that the film was essentially a one-man show (written, produced, directed, acted, edited, probably even catered by one guy) any coverage of the film would include his name. Adding "Joshua Finch" to "Crime Follows Punishment" easily limits the search beyond any random use of the phrase. For example, a general google search finds 19 hits -- mostly related to Wiki or Facebook. And no mention from searches of sources like In Film, Inside Film Magazine or Screen Australia — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Modified my comment above because I accept that what it lacks in notability "now" is a situation that could change if it receives distribution. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage has been found. The article states the film was screened (usually meaning a one-night showing) in a couple local theaters in Sydney and then went to DVD (but has no distribution company) -- so, no significant coverage should be expected. Even a search of the one possible significant source provided, Inside Film Magazine, does not find that referenced article, the author or any mention of the film or director. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Enemy (film)[edit]

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

The only thing about this "movie" is two YouTube videos but I've not found anything to say that this is fact (IE: Not a HOAX). Even if this movie is fact I would hardly see it being notable since there is no press (news articles), and even the external link in the article fails to show it (the film).

At this stage the article is unsourced with no verifiable or reliable sources and would be deemed it as promotional. Bidgee (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to author and let it come back once/if film is made and the article can be verified and sourced. As it is, it's way too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until additional sources become available to establish notability/existance. At best, WP:CRYSTAL applies, and the article is premature. No objection to userfication. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Atherstone Town F.C. managers[edit]

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

This article has barely any content and it is completely unsourced. Its subject is a football club that has never reached a national level of competition in England. – Pee Jay 12:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page, which is sourced but incomplete and covers the same club:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 13:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close since both articles are now redirects to the team's article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why have a redirect sitting around that no one will ever use. Ridernyc (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. No reason for deletion is presented in the nomination or the discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhye's and Fall of Civilization[edit]

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion, however I'm unclear as to whether it is notable enough to satisfy CSD A7. Taking here for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or ~~MERGE~~: Contains new information not on the main Civilization IV page. I am actually fine with a merge, or we can keep it. The main Civ IV page says this was a user written program which is, to date, the only user mod of the game recognized as an expansion by the software producers of Civilization. There is also a sub-program called "stability" in the game which causes nations to collapse if their governments are opprressive. The Civ IV encyclopedia actually calls this a "crowning achievement". Not sure if we should merge it based on that - might be notable enough to keep it. -OberRanks (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so hot on merging right now after reading the homepage for the expansion (yes it has its own offcial website). Looks like it good some major press coverage when it came out. This has all been added to the article page which is significantly longer. -OberRanks (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Default to snow keep Though I'm not convinced this needs or warrants an article outside of the Beyond the Sword article, this certainly doesn't want deleting outright and the presence of sources like this and this means it's in no way a CSD A7 candidate. Someone another 01:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After reading through all of the arguments it's pretty clear that there is a consensus for deletion. No one is questioning the notability of the topic, but there are a nexus of concerns that led most who commented to support deletion. The central worry is that, given the lack of real-world definition for the term "war on terrorism," the scope of this article is difficult or impossible to define. Delete !voters argue that this has led (and will continue to lead) to a coatrack type article with a significant amount of material that would constitute original research since independent reliable sources do not establish its relationship to the ill-defined term "war on terror." This is certainly a valid concern given our policies, it was articulated to greater or lesser degrees by a super-majority of editors who commented here, and it was not really addressed directly by most of those who support keeping the article (indeed several ignored it completely). Given the discussion I believe deletion is the only outcome at this time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War on Terrorism casualties[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP. There seems to be a mini-AfD on the article's talk page. I abstain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrKIA11 (talk • contribs)

I feel that this article should either be deleted or restrict the data on those concerning only casualties resulting from the US-led military operations conducted under the WoT banner. Data concerning countries that did not formally join the WoT, such as UK, should be removed as well.--79.167.189.239 (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What a mess. I think it is important for there to be sourced figures about how many military and civilian deaths there have been in any war or conflict. We need to know how many bystanders died along with the number of combatants from each side. In this instance, however, all of those figures are thrown together in one crockpot called "War on Terrorism", which apparently gets redefined with every new edit. The only things that seem to be certain are that these occurred (a) on or after September 11, 2001 and (b) on a shining planet called Earth. Userfy this, come to an agreement on how it should be presented, come back when you have something useful. Mandsford (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK, WP:POVFORK (War on Terrorism#Casualties) and WP:NOT#STATS, all combined in one. The article's conclusions are not supported by its sources. For example the so-called sources for the claim that the War on Terror killed 1,561 Colombians are: "7 [Colombian] soldiers killed by Colombian rebels' landmines", "Colombia police seek rebels after bomb kills [15] elite troops", "Colombia's President Vows to Eradicate Coca Plants . . . after rebel forces killed 29 soldiers standing guard as workers destroyed coca crops", and two nonexisting 404 pages. Considering that the article contains little but dry statistics and most of these statistics are misrepresented or downright false, I see nothing here that could justify this separate treatment of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had nominated this article for deletion earlier. The concept behind the article seems to beg for POV debates. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if you could magically get rid of all the POV issues that come with this, there's still a ton of problems. Terrorism was not invented by Osama, Hussein, or Barney the Dinosaur. You would have to take in all historical cases as well, and then you would have to be able to measure terrorism in some quantifiable fashion. An article listing the top ten expletives used in hand-to-hand combat would be a cleaner article than this... -WarthogDemon 18:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we can't statistically measure the toll of terrorism over the ages, there is indeed a "war on terrorism" as this FBI bulletin(reliable source) suggests.Smallman12q (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does help narrow the scope but there are still POV problems and weak sources. The article even says this when it speaks about civilian casualties: There is no widely agreed on figure for the number of people that have been killed so far in the "War on Terrorism"... -WarthogDemon 20:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really see what type of POV issues can be raised (could someone list these out?). What this article should do is list out the casualities...a list of non-debatable nuimbers regarding the number of casualties in the War on Terrorism. This article clearly needs to be revised, but it certainly shouldn't be deleted. (I'd like to point out that there is a similar article for World War 2 and for World War I).Smallman12q (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is throwing Battle of Mogadishu (1993), Operation Scorched Earth or some fake stats about Colombian drug-related matters in the mix not POV? Also, what about the rest of the mentioned problems? — Rankiri (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)World wars were actual wars, though. If this article is to be kept, then what is the definition of WoT that would be used and what would be listed as a WoT casualty? By some definition of WoT, all operations labeled as counter-terrorist (and maybe attacks labeled as terrorist?) since 9/11 and until the end of time are included... See the mess of this concept? All we seem to do here is, pretty much, replicate Bush POV, which is actually not supported by reliable sources.--79.167.189.239 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the GAO has a put a cost figure to the War on Terrorism (also Time has an article to the cost as well).
In addition, it the GAO also has put out [www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics] which lists some statistics on the casualties on the global war on terror. The problem lies in defining the scope of the article which I understand to be the global war on terror as bush "declared" it.Smallman12q (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say, but a weak delete from me. There is so much grey area that it's hard to say how useful or encyclopedic this article really is. For one, what do you consider part of the WOT: all terrorism since 9/11, or earlier, or something more constrained? How do you separate the normal inviolence and political fighting that occur in these unstable regions? Considering that it is hard to draw a conclusion on anything regarding an ongoing war, the sources are piecemeal at best. The whole thing smacks of OR. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - the 'War on Terror' needs to be consistently defined before an article on is casualties is created. OR, COATRACK, etc. Also as per Rankiri. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep All of these events listed have been called a war on terrorism by the news media. Listing how many people from each nation died, be they there as soldiers, embassy workers, or contractors, is relevant, and plenty of references to back up the information. If you have a problem with the name of the article, then discuss changing it to another. We are here to discuss whether the article itself, by whatever name, should be allowed to exist. Dream Focus 22:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[47] This is the first result in a google search. Notice the use of quotes there at 'War on terrorism'. Also check these out: [48] and [49]. The WoT is not used by the media as anything more than a name that was given to a campaign. --79.167.189.239 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, can I please see some WP:RS sources that mention these exact casualty figures and directly link all of these events to the War on Terror? So far, my search for "War on Terrorism"+"Operation Scorched Earth" yielded no results in Google News, Google Scholar or Google Books. By the way, take a look at [50] and [51]. — Rankiri (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself already has references for all the numbers. As for news sources, I find 89,100[52] on Google news search, when I search for "War on Terror" "Bush" "Iraq". News headlines such as "Bush: Iraq is a victory in global war on terror." appear. Remember, the news media calls it a war on terror, not a war on terrorism. Perhaps the article should be renamed to reflect that. Dream Focus 04:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a reasonable amount of sources. There is an obvious problem with some events known exactly to the individual , and some only to the nearest 10,000, but this does not affect the overall validity as a measure of the effects of warfare--though the spurious precision does require caution in interpretation--one could correctly conclude that the most civilian deaths are in Iraq without knowing whether the Iraq/Afghanistan ration is 10:1 or 5:1 . I see only one totally weird figure: the civilian deaths in the table for Thailand, though a number of the other civilian figures are unsourced & perhaps somewhat dubious. The other columns seem much more reliable. I suppose we could limit it to military + contractors. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, most of the article's numbers don't come directly from its sources, and most of these so-called sources are completely fake and non-WP:RS. As another, absolutely randomly taken example, its source for Israel's War on Terrorism casualties is Wikipedia's article on 2006 Lebanon War. Next to it, there is another Lebanon statistic: 850 deaths. The source for this one? Another 404 page. The number of US casualties in Afghanistan (5,186) is supported by yet another nonexistent page and a rather dubious source([53]) that shows an entirely different number of 999 deaths. As for "terror" vs. "terrorism", let me correct myself: my searches for "War on Terrorism"+"Operation Scorched Earth" or "War on Terror"+"Operation Scorched Earth" yielded no relevant results in Google News, Google Scholar or Google Books. I understand that the squadron is trying to save the article, but would it kill you to take a closer look at it or perhaps even read my earlier post on the quality of the article's sources? Come on. — Rankiri (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, while your concerns about sourcing is a completely valid concern could you please explain how deleting this article is a solution? Sourcing this information is going to be just as much hard work if it is in a separate article as if it were stuffed into War on terror#casualties -- with the addition of the serious technical problems that arise when a wikilink is to a subsection heading that I describe below. Geo Swan (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with a flame fringe POV, poor sources, most of the entries there are a very bad misunderstanding. The name itself is flawed: to refer to these conflicts as "War on Terrorism" is supporting a fringe POV. The term is the term used by the Bush administration with no support (for the term) from the alleged allies, nor is it used by the new Obama administration that is carrying on the conflicts that were previously under the "War on Terrorism". As for the casualties of the conflict that Bush used to call "War on Terrorism", they are already in the main article and do not warrant a fork with a bad name like this. But thats besides the point, 90% of the entries here have nothing to do with Bush's campaign.--Anon 05:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aside from being a dubious topic for an article, much of its content appears to be the work of the now indef-blocked editor Top Gun (talk · contribs), who routinely made up his/her own casualty figures from his/her interpretation of random news reports. As such, the figures sourced to Wikipedia articles and the like (most of which were also targeted by Top Gun) are entirely unreliable. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, some are objecting to the article based on the numbers given. I'm looking through the CIA factbook now, and I'll search other government websites also. If the references in the article don't confirm all the information presented, I'm sure we can find it somewhere. They do keep track of these things. Dream Focus 07:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Research Service, www.crs.gov CRS Report for Congress, Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress [54]. Searching the CRS site, one can find all sorts of information, confirming or correcting any information in the article that is in doubt. All information presented will obviously be listed on one .gov site or another. Dream Focus 07:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not focusing on the bigger picture. As mentioned by Anon, the term "War on Terror", or "War on Terrorism", was principally invented and used by the Bush administration, and 90% of the entries in the list have nothing to do with Bush's post-9/11 anti-terrorist efforts. Whatever its unclear definition is, the War on Terror almost certainly doesn't have anything to do with Israeli–Lebanese conflict, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Illegal drug trade in Colombia, War in Somalia or, say, 1993 CIA shootings. The article in its current state is a completely unnecessary POV fork of War_on_Terrorism#Casualties, one that blatantly violates a number of WP policies and requires a fundamental rewrite to become accurate, useful and encyclopedic. Consequently, it needs to be removed out of the main namespace before some unsuspecting Wikipedia visitors start using it as an encyclopedic reference. — Rankiri (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finding reliable data is only part of the problem. The biggest issue is that there is no universal definition of WoT and we definitely should not be using Bush definition. --79.167.189.239 (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I've never been happy with this article, but maybe another solution could be found...--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smallman12q, let's discuss this at the bottom of the page. It makes things less messy. The total cost of WoT, in the Government Accountability Office report, is calculated by aggregating separate costs of Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Are these the operations you are suggesting we should use to calculate casualties? And what do you think should be included? --79.167.189.239 (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we should be using the definition as provided in the War on Terrorism article...ie. the bush definition. What this article ought to be is a fork of War_on_Terrorism#Casualties. That's how I view it...Smallman12q (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doomed to be a POV mess, the figures quoted will never actually be confirmed or sourced correctly. . Terrorism is a nebulous term at best and Victims of terrorism even more so. Ridernyc (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a nice idea in theory, but in practice this is almost certain to stay a POV WP:COATRACK just as it is now. There is no clear criteria and will probably never be a consensus as to what constitutes an event in the so-called "War on Terror", so I think this article is just going to end up as an ongoing headache for everybody concerned. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR Wikireader41 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, Smallman12q, that the WoT article simply presents what Bush wanted WoT to be, that is a globalized war on terrorists "that would not end until all terrorists have been defeated". That is what it presented to be, and the WoT article simply states that claim. Now, in reality, it wasn't all that global, and probably wasn't that counter-terroristic (war in Iraq). So, basically, to use the definition in the WoT article we practically must espouse the Bush POV of the WoT.--79.167.179.246 (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a list of a number of conflicts some of which are only linked to the war on terror by rather dubious associations. Some of which are not even listed as fronts in the war on terror article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do know there is a War on terrorism article?Smallman12q (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the talk page over there, you will see that it suffers from the same illness, we are describing here. The definition that is being used over there is pretty much unsourced, as you can see, and someone could very easily claim it's WP:SYN. It seems like the only reason, we are using that definition, is that we haven't come up with something better yet and I'm not sure that there are any reliable sources out there that specifically define WoT.

I'm the nominator IP btw. --JokerXtreme (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD's should not be used for POV pushing. Sure the article needs work but casualties are an imported part of the cluster of the "War on terror" articles we have. Nothing that could not be fixed. Tons of sources and the different definitions can be worked out and presented in a neutral way sure not easy but as a high quality encyclopedia we have the obligation not to leave out important aspects of a topic and i think it is possible. Really, IMO no reason to sanitize the story by leaving out the casualties. IQinn (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These casualties are already discussed on War on terrorism#Casualties. As mentioned above, the article's problems have little to do with the notability of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork? "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement. Not a POV fork at all for me. Also War on terrorism is already very large with 118 kb and War on terrorism#Casualties is one of the biggest sections with lot's of sources. Better to move material from there to this article here. This is just one reason more for me to vote for keep.IQinn (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this article, doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be recreated. It just means that the current content is inappropriate. What could be done, is delete the current content AND move surplus content from the main article. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current article and move surplus material to the article here that should be done. Deleting articles is not the right way to fix articles. Your proposed solution does not make sense to me. Move surplus content from the main article to where? I do not think deleting is the right way to fix articles. There is nothing "inappropriate" in the article here. It needs fixing and with the surplus material from War on terrorism it would significantly improve. IQinn (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the overwhelming majority of the editors that have replied here, seem to believe that there is something wrong with the current content and probably with the whole idea of having a separate article. Yet, I don't just want to press this issue and enforce the opinion of the majority. I'd like to exhaust all possibilities first. Why do you think that the current content must be kept? --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right outcomes of Afd's are not decided by voting, it's done by the strengths of the arguments and through discussion to find a solution that increases the quality of Wikipedia. I have given reasons for the importance of the topic and as i see the discussion now. Nobody really disagrees that this is an important topic that should be covered and well presented in Wikipedia. The counter argument to that was, we already have a section in War on terrorism, War on terrorism#Casualties. My counter argument to that was that War on terrorism is already oversize with 118 kb and the casualties section is one of the biggest sections so material should be moved to the article here. And i do think that nobody so far gave compelling counter arguments or a working alternative solution to solve this.
Therefor i agree with the from user Geo Swan proposed solution, a solution that i have also proposed. Keep and move most of the material from War on terrorism#Casualties to the article here. IQinn (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that need to be entirely rewritten fall under the deletion policy. Did you read my previous comments about the quality of the article's facts and sources? If you did, I'd like you to respond to them. I have no problem with having an accurate and objective article on the subject, but right now we have an unnecessary fork filled with original research, distortions and outright falsehoods. At least the parent article doesn't list victims of the South Thailand insurgency as a casualty in the War on Terror. — Rankiri (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we need to delete this article here in order to merge War on terrorism#Casualties into this article. I think i have pointed out that i do not share your interpretation that this article is a POV fork? "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement. And as i said i agree that there are problems but i strongly disagree that these problems can not be solved through editing. OR? Why didn't you cut it out with a small explanation on the articles talk page? I do not think that Afd's should be used to discuss things that can be solved through editing. If the conflict in South Thailand belongs to the "War on terror" is an interesting controversial topic and i respect your POV but i do not think that this AfD is the right place to discuss this point. There are different views and the article may end up with your view or it will end up with another view or it will represent both views what is often the better solution. I think it will work out when merged with War on terror#casualties IQinn (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind merging the article with War on terror#casualties if I thought that it had any additional informational value in it. The way I see it, the parent page already contains all the relevant information, and this article's potential additions would mainly be limited to bad sources, fake numbers and completely unsubstantiated WP:OR claims. — Rankiri (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- those voicing delete and merge opinions raise concerns with some validity. "War on terror" is an amorphous term. Additionally, it is a term the Bush Presidency stopped using, and which the Obama Presidency has never used. So the term is of historical, not current interest. On the other hand, how is merging this article into War on terror#casualties an improvement? Once merged "war on terror" remains amorphous, and of historical interest, since no official body uses the term any more. War on terror#casualties directs readers to Casualties of the Iraq War and Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). These are more clearly defined areas -- less amorphous than "war on terror". IMO whether the central discussion remains in this article, or at War on terror#casualties I think it would be best if it quotes some WP:RS about the problems of defining "war on terror", and then directs readers to the more specific articles. In addition to casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan "casualties of the war on terror" could include:
- Casualties of jihadist attacks on civilians in Europe -- if this article existed it could include the Madrid bombings, and the UK bombings;
- Casualties of jihadist attacks in Pakistan
- Casualties of jihadist attacks in Africa -- if this article existed should it include the bombings of the US embassies in Africa? There have been other bombings since 9-11;
- Casualties of jihadist attacks in Asia -- if this article existed it could include the Bali nightclud bombings; Should it include casualties of muslim rebels in the Phillipines?
- Casualties of jihadist attacks in the Americas -- 9-11 of course
- Casualties of jihadist attacks in the Gulf region -- if this article existed should it include the USS Cole bombing? Al Qaeda attacks on western oil company employees? Al Qaeda attacks on Saudi princes and their body guards? Al Qaeda support of Huthi rebels in Yemen?
- Casualties of the Iraq War
- Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Casualties of the "war on terror", outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, have not all been inflicted by jihadists.

- The CIA and US special forces were involved in incursions into Somalia by the forces of neighboring countries with friendly ties with the USA. The USA ran or helped run black prisons in Africa, following the 2006 incursion.
- During the Bill Clinton Presidency American intelligence (falsely?) believed that a new pharmaceutical plant being built in Sudan was actually a biological warfare plant -- sponsored by Osama Bin Laden, who was then living in Sudan with his entourage. The plant was destroyed in a surprise air attack, with some loss of life. Arguably the casualties of that bombing could be classed as "war on terror" casualties.
- The CIA or US special forces have used missiles launched from unmanned drones, or small teams of commandos to attack vehicles that were believed to be carrying high-ranking jihadists in Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere. Those killed or wounded in these attacks should probably also be considered considered casualties of the war on terror.
- Later in the Clinton Presidency, after Osama bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, and established training camps there, in retaliation for the embassy bombings, Clinton ordered air strikes on some of those al Qaeda training camps. I suggest therefore that it would not be unreasonable to accompany Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) with something like Casualties of attacks on al Qaeda prior to 9-11.
- Another related topic could be something like Mercenary casualties. There are WP:RS that assert that the reason that under the Bush Presidency tens of thousands of mercenaries performed soldiers' duties in Iraq was to mask from the American public how many casualties the Bush policy was inflicting. Granted, sources to document the numbers of casualties may be impossible to come by. But WP:RS have asserted that the figure, if published, would be on the order of a thousand. I suggest there are enough WP:RS to address this topic, even if there are not enough WP:RS to offer a figure.
- In 2003, 2004 and 2005, there was a lot of controversy over the number of civilian casualties in Iraq. I am sure there are sufficient WP:RS to justify Civilian casualties of the Iraq War. Geo Swan (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I know some wikipedia contributors think that wikilinking to subsection headings within articles is a perfectly acceptable practice. Several contributors have suggested here that it would be useful to replace this article with a redirection to War on terror#casualties. There are several important technical reasons why this specific suggestion, and the general practice of wikilinking to subsection headings within articles are a very bad idea:
- Among the most important factors that makes the wikipedia superior to plain old ordinary pages on the plain old world-wide-web are:
  1. Wikilinks are bidirectional, while plain old world-wide-web links aren't.
  2. Wikilinks are robust, in ways that plain old world-wide-web links aren't.
  3. There is no reliable way to know how many other web pages link to a plain old world-wide-web page.
  4. There is no reliable way to know whether a plain old world-wide-web page has been modified since your last visit.
- The wikimedia software provides us with moves -- page renames -- that make sure our links continue to work, even when articles are renamed. When a page is renamed the wikimedia software automatically creates a redirection page. The wikilink continues to take you to the right page, even when its name has been changed. But when someone creates a wikilink to a subsection heading within a page, that link breaks, it the subsection is renamed. The use of wikilinks to subsection headings returns us to the terrible situation of plain old world-wide-web pages.
- The wikimedia software provides us with watchlists -- a very powerful feature. We are told when the pages on the topics we are most interested in have changed. We can find out, with trivial effort, what other articles link to the current article. There is nothing like this for plain old world-wide-web pages. And the wikimedia software does not support telling us what wikilinks link to a section heading. A wikipedia contributor who sees something wrong with a section heading -- a spelling error, a punctuation error, an awkward phrasing -- and decides to change the heading, has no reliable way of knowing that they are going to break wikilinks anchored to that subsection heading. They have no way of knowing that heading change will break links.

If a topic is worthy of a wikilink that topic is worthy of an article of its own -- for the reasons I offered above, and so that our watchlists continue to be useful. The wikimedia software only supports putting full articles on our watchlist -- not subsections within articles. If I am specifically interested in "casualties of the war on terror" -- but not the "war on terror" in general, I can watchlist the one and not the other -- so long as they remain separate articles. If the two topics are merged our watchlist becomes less useful. Similarly, the "what links here" button also becomes less useful. When one is looking for information on topics where our coverage is not complete, and the articles that seemed most likely to contain that info don't contain it, a technique worth trying is to click on the "what links here" button, look at that list, and think about whether any of those articles might contain the information we need. This works best when each article is focussed on one specific topic. Unfortunately, when the urge to merge perfectly adequate articles on related topics succeeds it seriously erodes the usefulness of our watchlists and the "what links here" feature. The results of the "what links here" will be inflated by a lot of false positives. And our watchlists will show changes to topics we actually aren't interested in anyhow. Geo Swan (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- for the reasons I offered above I think the War on terror#casualties section of War on terror should be confined to brief context setting, and use ((main)) or ((seealso)) to direct readers to article(s) that are more specifically focussed. I agree that there are problems with the article, in its current state. But those problems are shared with the War on terror#casualties section, in its current state. Geo Swan (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No to keeping slanted articles for "technical reasons". War on terror is a bad article itself, it needs a major rewrite, you can tell that by looking at the number of templates at the top of it and the years of bloody disputes on the talk pages. Because one poorly written article is organised in a way that it needs a POV-slanted sub-article such as this supposed "casualties list", does not mean that we should keep the bad sub-article.--Anon 06:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you are actually proposing is to keep the article but delete its content and just redirect to War on terror#casualties? Well the part with the watchlists isn't very convincing, since wikipedia should be more convenient to readers not editors. I'm also opposed to listing terrorist attack victims as WoT casualties. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to second Joker's sentiments regarding watchlists. Not convincing in the least. NickCT (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JokerXtreme, you wrote that I suggested we "keep the article but delete its content and just redirect to War on terror#casualties..." I am willing to accept this assertion was made in good faith, but I am frankly mystified as to how you could reach that interpretation.
- WRT to being convenient to readers, not editors -- first, you don't think our regular readers use watchlists? second, you seem to be asserting that larger, omnibus articles serve our readers better than smaller, more focussed articles. I have never seen anyone make a serious effort to defend this position. Frankly I believe this position is based on a completely mistaken view of how the wikimedia software is used. I suggest it is easier for a reader to go to a topic by clicking on a wikilink, than it is to find a topic through scrolling through an inappropriately large article that tries to address multiple topics. Books were linear. The wikipedia doesn't have to be. To what extent should wikipedia editors be allowed to control how our readers transit from topic to topic to arrive at the information they really want? I suggest that our readers should be free to go from topic to topic in the order that best serves their interests -- not in the order wikipedia editors think best. That is the unfortunate result however when we allow inappropriately broad merges.
- You also wrote: "I'm also opposed to listing terrorist attack victims as WoT casualties." Really? Do you think it would be possible for you to explain this opposition? Haven't the victims of terrorist attacks routinely been described as WoT casualties by those who use that term? Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is what I understood. To be honest I'm not so sure any more. Can you sum up briefly what exactly you are suggesting?
My guess is that no or very few non-editors use watchlists. That is only an assertion of course, but I think it's valid.
You may be right about the terrorist attack victims. Can you support this with any sources? --JokerXtreme (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree keeping an article so that it can be watched males no logical sense at all. Ridernyc (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MonoRail[edit]

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

Another .NET CMS, which seems to fail WP:GNG. Pcap ping 09:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Besides the ton-o-blogs, I found a 2/3-page comparison with ASP.NET MVC in this 2009 book. I'm inclined to withdraw this, but I'm leaving it open for a while, maybe more WP:RS sources can be found. Pcap ping 09:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A couple of mentions: [55], [56]. Still somewhat shy of WP:GNG. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 14:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another Dr. Dobbs article claims ASP.NET MVC was "Clearly inspired by Castle MonoRail" Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I had found those; a bit POV given the plethora of MVCs out there, which could have inspired MS. There are significant differences if you read the comparison in the book I found above. But, I also found significant coverage in this other book (10 pages or so). Oddly enough, I wasn't able to find a single in-depth magazine article. I even searched for its former name "Castle on Rails". Anyway, this is enough for me. I'm withdrawing this before some real deletionsts waltz onto this AfD :-) Pcap ping 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaspinder badesha[edit]

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

I just think this is not allowed. Rabbit67890 (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a rationale for bringing an article to AFD 1 minute after it was created, and looks like vandalism to me. MuffledThud (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whatever the defects of the nomination rationale, I can't find any coverage, significant or otherwise, of either the author or the book. That the book exists is about all I could confirm. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 14:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 18:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 18:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:AUTHOR. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is clear, and if this decision is inconsistent with that for Kohana, that is the way AfD works. I looked at the last source added by Ekerazha to see if it might justify a last-minute reprieve to relisting; but it only lists Yii among over 100 applications nominated for awards. JohnCD (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yii[edit]

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

AfDs for this article:

Yii Framework was deleted twice for the lack of notability. Same problem here: yet another web php framework. Peni (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreation of the previous article. Still not covered outside of blogs and howtos.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Published on the php|architect magazine. Ekerazha (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (GregJackP (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep and TIRED about this situation, this article and Kohana were both deleted, Kohana was created again and survived the new deletion request (opened by me) with no new arguments, just more fans who wanted to "keep" it. Please note Yii also has more hits on Google than Kohana (and a written book on Yii will be out soon). If you delete this article while keeping the other one, you can trust me I'll ignore the Kohana deletion discussion and I'll delete that article with my hands, I'm TIRED of this lack of consistency. Ekerazha (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources pass the muster for WP:GNG. That Kohana got closed as "no consensus" by an admin exhausted by the walls of text and irrelevant links posted is irrelevant to this discussion. Pcap ping 19:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Irrelevant" was a good reason to delete the article... and this is very relevant as this is the same situation. Ekerazha (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the php|architect magazine does pass WP:GNG ("Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media"). Ekerazha (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The php|architect magazine source (Google cache) to which Ekerazha refers is insufficient in that the coverage is not the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG:

Text about Yii in the php
architect magazine source
Yii: Flex Your Flash by Jeff Winesett Adding a little Flash to applications is a common approach web developers take as they strive to meet today’s buzzword compliance. Maximizing interoperability and data exchange by leveraging web Services to allow application-to-application communication has revolutionized the Web business model. It’s hard to imagine the Internet today without the Web service APIs of, among many others, Google, Yahoo and Amazon. This article shows how to easily accomplish both of these modern Web development demands by using the extremely powerful and light-weight PHP framework, Yii.

Text about Yii in the php

architect magazine source

Yii: Flex Your Flash by Jeff Winesett

Adding a little Flash to applications is a common approach web developers take as they strive to meet today’s buzzword compliance. Maximizing interoperability and data exchange by leveraging web Services to allow application-to-application communication has revolutionized the Web business model. It’s hard to imagine the Internet today without the Web service APIs of, among many others, Google, Yahoo and Amazon. This article shows how to easily accomplish both of these modern Web development demands by using the extremely powerful and light-weight PHP framework, Yii.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WWE SmackDown. JForget 00:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smack down![edit]

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

Pure original research, and if it is a relevant term why is it limited to Unreal Tournament from 2004? It's been tagged for a while, but no improvements. Searching for the term isn't particularly fruitful. Shadowjams (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible redirect to WWE SmackDown, the most obvious use for this term. No idea if it's ever even been used for Unreal beyond the usual online taunting way, which wouldn't meet notability. Nate • (chatter) 11:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Gatoclass (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to WWE SmackDown per Nate. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A9 by Tbsdy lives. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murder Happy Fairytales[edit]

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

Non-notable: The album was never officially released, and the band's own article, Maniac Spider Trash, has just been deleted by AfD as non-notable - -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I clicked on all the links (news, books, etc...) but no docs were matched on any of them. So, what's the point? Minima c (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — album by a non-notable group. Article has been tagged with ((db-album)). TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, cool - I didn't know about CSD A9 -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

House of Education[edit]

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

Non-notable website advertising for-profit educational institutions 2 says you, says two 03:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find any reliable sources to convey notability. Fails WP:WEB. —LedgendGamer 07:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It appears to have changed its name to "Career School Source" - its URL (ext link 1) redirects to http://www.careerschoolsource.com. But I could find no reliable sources for that either -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IRC (IRC client)[edit]

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

Delete. Admittedly it is difficult to search for a chat client called "IRC" (really, that's what it is called) but try as I might I'm not finding anything which would indicate that this meets our general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; WP:JNN --Tothwolf (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page has no sources and Google shows no signs of nontrivial relevant coverage for iRC client "Colin Munro". — Rankiri (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unreasonable to expect volunteers to spend their time looking for sources for a piece of software named like this. The article's creator better provide them. Being somewhat familiar with sources discussing OS X IRC clients, I have to say I've not even seen this one even mentioned. Pcap ping 10:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems like this client written just for experiance and lulz. And i agreed with JBsupreme, it's unreal to search this client. iorlas (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Iorlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. It's possible to do perfect case-sensitive search using http://case-sensitive-search.appspot.com (that web-app simply filters google results). But even with that approach I was unable to find something reasonable about iRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.35.27.153 (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @136 · 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rainfurrest[edit]

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

I can't find any third-party sources outside of livejournal, flickr and the like. I don't see anything suggesting that this convention meets the General Notability Guideline. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more links, as well as information about the upcoming years event. I don't know why it would constitute getting rid of this entry when there's other furry conventions with the same if not less information on their entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacada1 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New posts go to the bottom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't cut it, also suggest that author read WP:OSE. Just because other furry conventions have short articles doesn't mean a thing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I after reading the General Notability Guideline and the WP:OSE, I still don't see how the article does not meet the standards of wikipedia. I suggest then more specific examples be posted to address the issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacada1 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that Wikipedia articles need reliable third-party sources in order to be presumed notable. Newspaper articles, magazines, books, that sort of thing. Before nominating the article, I did a search for anything that would qualify, and I couldn't find anything. If the convention has gotten media attention, then you could find those articles and put them into the article, and that might save it. For an example of an article about a convention that meets our guidelines for inclusion, see Macworld Conference & Expo. That one has plenty of newspaper articles and the like to confirm that it is a notable event. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isaacada: Basically, Rainfurrest is a three-year-old event that nobody that Wikipedia considers important has written about, therefore there is no "reliable source" for the information that would be in the article. Compare this to Anthrocon which has many instances of media coverage since 2006. If you want to write something, try starting with an event that has a news article about it and draw your facts from there. Furry conventions often shun media coverage so this is a perennial problem. GreenReaper (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no sources outside of furry specific websites and a Starfox fan forum. There is no notable media coverage. --BaronVonYiffington (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now. I suspect this event will at some point be eligible for an article, given its rate of growth, but right now all I have to offer are two episodes of the podcast "Pacific Fen Spotlight". GreenReaper (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh fish[edit]

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

This article purports to be about fresh fish. It is actually about curing food, and is a copy/paste from here and possibly Curing (food preservation) --Epipelagic (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After I removed the copyvio (and even before I removed the copyvio), the aricle is really just about curing food. The title is invalid as a redirect to either Fish, Fish market or Curing (food preservation). Therefore, the only option left is to delete. —LedgendGamer 07:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The content is adequately covered at Curing (food preservation), and it doesn't make sense to make it a redirect -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This article isn't about "Fresh fish" at all; the subject of food preservation is already well-covered at appropriate titles. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mistitled, already covered elsewhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I was looking for a resource on curing fish, I would not look for the title "fresh fish". Instead I would look for something like Curing (food preservation) which is already there. FaceMash (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn by nom. tedder (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Lakes High School[edit]

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

It does not meet the guidelines for notability set forth in WP: Notability. It has never been featured beyond local publications and has never. for example, been on the U.S News Top Schools list. I feel a perfect example of what I am referring to can be found on the Article's talk page, where a student or alumni refers to how humorous stories from a teacher should be added to the article. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) an article must be written about in Secondary sources not sponsored by the organization itself. A quick search on Google indicates that there has been no major articles in credible secondary sources about the School. Therefore, I believe it is a candidate for deletion. 226Trident (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Secondary schools are inherently notable, in my opinion. --Baron Larf 04:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet the guidelines for notability of a school. In my opinion, Secondary Schools are not inherently notable, unless they have extensive media coverage. The article has little use, anyways. Anyone who wants information about the school goes to its website. The Wikipedia page is not even on the first two pages of the Google search, so it is not even a source of information that people use.226Trident (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't remember the last time an American high school article was deleted. The school has received ample coverage in DC-area sources [59], and there's no rule that says non-local sources are necessary. Several notable people went there, like Grant Hill: [60].

I do not believe that Notable Alumni would affect the notability of the actual school. In addition, most of the local coverage is sports coverage. 226Trident (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While I do not believe that schools need to pass a secondary source bar to be kept, here are some sources which may be considered "credible secondary sources."

Yes it has media coverage, so I was wrong about that. However,a lot of these articles are either old (which does not lower the reference's credibility} or about redistricting (which does not lower the quality of the reference either). But comparing your media coverage with the Article on Wikipedia, I notice that there is not a mention of any of these achievements or controversy's. They certainly did not mention redistricting. I do agree however, that there is media coverage of the school.226Trident (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the article needs to be better referenced (and I plan to help fix that). But I do not believe deletion is the answer for an article in need of improvement. And true, some of those articles are "old", as in from 8 to 20 years ago... but how does that affect notability? Is the bar for notability higher if the important stuff happened a long time ago? Cheers, --Baron Larf 06:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 06:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not believe that all secondary schools are notable and such thinking generally damages the purposes of our notability standards. On the other hand, most schools are notable and this one has been shown to be through its mention in third-party sources. Them From Space 06:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this appears to be plenty notable as far as schools can go. JBsupreme (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess y'all are right. This article is notable enough, and with cleanup, it should meet the standards.226Trident (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Mclaughlin[edit]

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

Non-notable actress who was in one straight-to-video movie and had a bit part on a single episode of Ugly Betty. WP:ENT requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows," etc., which this actress has not had. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two is multiple Rebel1916 (talk) Rebel1916 —Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC). — User:Rebel1916 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Even though two is multiple, the Ugly Betty role wasn't significant. JackSlice^Talk _Adds 05:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One role in a film of questionable notability isn't enough. A guest appearence on a notable show isn't a role. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. JackSlice^Talk _Adds 05:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It simply isn't notable. We can't include every extra or actor who played minor roles on a television show on Wikipedia. 226Trident (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice towqard recreation once/if her career moves forward. Yes, she has coverage for Ugly Betty [61] and for the film Clique [62]... but notability is still waiting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely unnotable actress. Starring in a single direct to DVD film and one bit part is not enough to meet either WP:N nor WP:ENT. Only sourcing and coverage is from a user-edited site and her own website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @135 · 02:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mainframe (G.I. Joe)[edit]

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

non-notable GIJoe character action figure. Ridernyc (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unless we're planning to merge all minor GI Joe characters to a single page, I fail to see why this is being nominated. Why not tag other characters as well? (Note, I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but this is a comparison between two kinds of apples, not apples and oranges.) What do Dial Tone, Leatherneck, Wet Suit, and Claymore have that Mainframe doesn't? And for full disclosure, I'm not a GI Joe fan. -WarthogDemon 06:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree fully with the above. Is there something that makes this one particular individual GI Joe character non-notable but not the hundreds of others Wikipedia also has articles about? And I'm not a GI Joe fan either. JIP | Talk 06:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could care less if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unless, of course, that stuff happens to be sources which provide non-trivial coverage of this subject. Where are they? JBsupreme (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are articles out there in category Category:G.I. Joe characters that provide even less coverage than this article, yet haven't been AfDed. Is the idea to go through every one of them, or just pick a couple of articles at random? JIP | Talk 08:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everyone needs to move on from the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. If it makes you feel better I can nominate them all now, Seriously don't acknowledge WP:OTHERSTUFF then make otherstuff arguments. Trust me based on what happens here they all might go under the hammer. I recommend moving on to showing how these characters are notable and have anything besides trivial coverage that requires their own articles. Hell this article basically out right says this is a minor character that did nothing. Ridernyc (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought I was making it clear that I wasn't using the otherstuffexists argument. The very first sentence I said was "Keep - unless we're planning to merge all minor GI Joe characters to a single palge". -WarthogDemon 14:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a G.I. Joe fan and I do not feel like I can offer an objective opinion, but here is my take, from a pure notability angle. Let's look at WP:N. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. If we are restricting ourselves to independent coverage, meaning the Marvel comics don't count, there are three main sources of information for G.I. Joe characters that I am aware of: Yojoe.com, which has information on the toys themselves and scans of the file cards, Myuselessknowledge.com, which has information on the characters as they are in the comic books, Mark W. Bellomo's book Ultimate Guide to G.I. Joe 1982-1994. This book is not available online, and is not currently used in any G.I. Joe articles, but I have read it in print and it is a directory of G.I. Joes that has an image of each figure along with a brief biography summarizing personality traits, out-of-universe background material, and sometimes a sentence or two on the comic book version. Basically, just the sort of information we want.

Now, the two websites count as providing significant independent coverage, but they do not, in my opinion, meet WP:RS. I support their use as sources in the articles because I have personally always found them to be accurate and reliable, but they have little value in an AFD debate.

The third source, the book, meets all three criteria (significant coverage, independent, reliable), but WP:N also states that "Multiple sources are generally expected," so we're not out of the woods yet. It comes down to community consensus: if an article has one source that meets RS and two that do not, do we keep it or don't we? I myself am not sure. Of course, none of the articles under discussion here use this book as a source; I myself no longer have access to it, but if someone who does could add references to these articles, that would go a long way towards establishing notability.

However, we may be able to avoid the issue altogether, because those three sources are not the only sources out there.

James DeSimone has authored several guides to G.I. Joe figures that bear looking at, and Tomart Publications has also put a few: Tomarts Encyclopedia & Price Guide to Action Figure Collectibles, Vol. 1: A-Team Thru G.I.Joe and Tomart's Price Guide to G.I. Joe Collectibles. There is also the Complete Encyclopedia to G.I. Joe, but I understand that it deals mostly with 12-inch Joes. I do not have access to any of these, so maybe someone who does could tell use if they have any use here?

A more character-oriented work, as opposed to toy-oriented, is Pablo Hidalgo's G.I. Joe Vs. Cobra: The Essential Guide. Again, I haven't read it, and I don't know how comprehensive it is, but at least it should help us with the most well-known characters.

If anyone knows of any other sources, please post them.

I've put a lot of work into these articles, so naturally I hope they get kept. However, I realize that that may not happen. Perhaps the most likely outcome is a compromise, something like what happened with the Pokemon articles: keep the most significant, like Jigglypuff and Pikachu, or Snake-Eyes, Scarlett, Duke and the other big-shots in the case of G.I. Joe, and merge the others into a list. If we go that route, it should be more than what currently exists at List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. It should be something more like what exists at List of Pokémon (1–20), with a brief description of each character.

(Reposted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbecue (G.I. Joe)) Cerebellum (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject G.I. Joe Cerebellum (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think listings a price guide counts as significant coverage. I have no argument against merging other then the fact that recently people agree to merge and it never happens. I'm finding AFD's that ended in a consensus to merge a 6 months to a year ago and nothing has been done.Ridernyc (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might take a while to merge 209 articles and to hammer out which ones actually deserve their own articles, but I can guarantee that if the result of this debate is merge, I will get started on merging immediately. Cerebellum (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a tentative benchmark that would probably get rid of 50% of the articles in Category:G.I. Joe characters: I a character has appeared in more than one incarnation of G.I. Joe it gets its own article. (Note: This doesn't mean figure + comic = 2, it means figure + comic + cartoon = 2.) The reason for this is that if we simply merge everything in sight, a lot of information will be lost, since many of these characters have appeared in several different incarnations. I'm not saying that this is perfect, but it is a start at least, and once the non-controversial chaff is weeded out then we can start discussing the leftovers individually, on their own merits, rather than mass-deleting. Cerebellum (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character has appeared in numerous comic book series, toy lines, and cartoon series. He was a major character also, quite well developed. Dream Focus 21:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge adequately. The one sentence per character list is not enough & at the present state of things there is no way to ensure adequate coverage except to keep. It shouldnt be necessary, for good combination articles would do, but they are continually whittled down, & some apparently don;t accept them in principal as a way of handling relative minor material unless they are notable enough for an individual article. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per DGG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major character in a major series, with plenty of "other media" appearances. Also, it shouldn't need to be said to anyone experienced with the AFD process, but the "Don't delete this one unless you're prepared to delete them all!" is quite possible the biggest Classic Bad Idea. ;) BOZ (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Exactly what BOZ said. Heck, Mainframe himself got comics (multiple, across two companies) and at least one cartoon focused on him. But for the AFD G.I.Joe debate in general please see http://www.yojoe.com/archive/collectorbooks/. Many third part G.I.Joe sources. Many. Perfect for Wikipedia referencing. Lots42 (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

once again collectors directories, prices guides, GIJoe encyclopedias... do nothing to establish notability for individual characters. Ridernyc (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Cerebellum (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they don't provide significant coverage of the subject. Pretty basic, also have you actually read these "sources" of yours or did they just come in a Google search, do you have any clue what they say. How did you add it as a source to articles yet you don't know the page number? Ridernyc (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right, some do not provide significant coverage. However, some do. If you are talking about the sources I added to Barbecue (G.I. Joe), the Essential Guide has a Google Books preview that gives me a pretty good idea of its content (the Barbecue entry is not part of the preview, but by looking at some of the other entries I can infer that the coverage will be significant), and I have read the Ultimate Guide and know for a fact that it has significant coverage (i.e., addresses the subject directly and in detail). I don't know the page number because I do not have the book any more and there is no table of contents online. Cerebellum (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to this preview that provides the information please. Ridernyc (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. Here it is: [63]. They're not kidding about the "limited" part, but you can still see some stuff. Try page 22 for a good example. Cerebellum (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The table of contents on page vii is where I got the page number for Barbecue from. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny biographical blurb, far from significant coverage. Ridernyc (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to argue with a subjective statement like that is with another subjective statement: 200 words (the approximate estimated length of Mainframe's entry, extrapolated from Falcon's entry on pg. 45, Low-Lights on p. 51, and Psyche-Out's on pg. 53) is without a doubt significant. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." --Cerebellum (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has not been assert through third person websites. 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Chernobyl[edit]

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

This is a "beer cocktail" where you..... it's a boilermaker except it's flavored vodka. There are no citations or sources, or references, and googling for it is just a list of tragedies involving thyroid cancer. Even adding the word beer to that search doesn't cheer it up. What I haven't seen though is a reference to this drink. Shadowjams (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In fact googling it in quotes, followed by either drink, cocktail, or beer, gets zero hits. MATThematical (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Sources. Google has nothing. Could be a Hoax. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 03:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not a hoax, but I suspect it is something made up one day. The sources, if any, are extraordinary well hidden. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Bradjamesbrown, I doubt it's a hoax but probably someone's homemade brew. fetchcomms☛ 03:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen so many made up drinks that I think a good blog or book could be made out of the drinks of wikipedia. Or at least a night of heavy drinking. Shadowjams (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, snow or speedy. Zero sources. — Rankiri (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 14:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionpedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Received only a brief flurry of coverage in September 2008. There is literally no coverage after that point, indicating that the site did not establish any long-term notability at all. There was a chunk of sources dug up in the 2nd AFD, but most of them were deemed either dubious, dated from September 2008 or both. Yes, I know this is the 3rd nomination (the "second" one was due to a twinkle glitch and doesn't count), but my points still stand. The site has utterly failed to establish long term notability, as literally no one paid any form of media attention to it after a brief coverage. Notability is not temporary, but if literally every source is from the same super-narrow swath, then it's hard to argue that it was really notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have enough sources, even if several are duplicates. I don't think that lack of being current covered is the same as lack of notability. PaleAqua (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to make this a case of WP:OSE, but what makes this different from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RinkWorks? Exact same situation. All coverage was a small handful of articles from the site's 1998 launch, with bupkis afterward. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not familiar with the site in question but if it only had one source as was alluded to in the AfD then I could see why it was deleted. I don't think that just because a topic is no longer current means it's no longer notable. Also a little WP:OSE, but for example consider a company that has gone out of business such as Eastern Air Lines, does the fact that there is little to no current news on them. Also there are a few recent news articles on deletionpedia though they don't really say much new. See: http://www.revistasculturales.com/articulos/97/revista-de-occidente/1212/2/wikipedia-la-megaenciclopedia-de-la-web.html for example from 2009-12. PaleAqua (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep I fail to see what new information has come about that would prove lack of notability from the last nomination 7 months ago. Perhaps if it receives no more coverage in several years that would be an argument to bring up the new deletion, but 7 months seems kind of small to me. If an athlete is world champion and then receives no coverage afterwards does that mean he is no longer notable. Can you please refer me to the section of WP:Notable where continued coverage is required, maybe its something specific to websites that I missed. MATThematical (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't see any reason why something, once notable, ceases to be so because it is no longer newsworthy. By that rule huge numbers of historical entries would be deleted. Added to which the act of deleting would make the subject notable again... Webmink (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the list of WP:Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia (3rd nomination)'s potential sources, I just found this 20.10.2009 article in PC-Welt (German PC World): [64] (translation). Looks like the subject passes WP:WEB after all. — Rankiri (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Sources in the last AFD show that it meets the WP:GNG, and there's no other policy based reason (copyvio, WP:BLP1E for deletion. Repeatedly putting the article up for AFD won't change that.Umbralcorax (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep why does this keep on being proposed? --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Deletionpedia. — neutral on remaining on Wikipedia. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the sources are substantial enough to show that this site was ever notable, then it stays here. once notable, always notable. the argument that its no longer notable, or didnt live up to its promise, is utterly without merit.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per mercurywoodrose. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources. that the sources are a year or two old does not make for lack of notability. If consensus is changing it's towards a more definite keep of this, and other such articles. Let's stop trying to pretend that a connection with Wikipedia is enough to make something less notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not expire. In any case, there's recent coverage in Google News such as this so the nomination is counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't buy this new rationale at all. There is no such thing as "long term notability"; it wouldn't matter if all the sources were published during the same second. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia:Notability#is not temporary. –xeno^talk 20:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In any society with free speech, there is a dynamic between publishing with no censorship and publishing with censorship to protect people from libel, copyright violation, trade secret violation, being exposed to extreme forms of pornography and illegal acts, and other violations of their rights and the protection of minors. In other words, it is not always clear whether the right to free speech overrides other rights in specific cases. Since WP is an encyclopedia, used by anyone including children and people residing in countries opposing the idea of freedom of speech, I believe that WP should be self-censored with respect to protecting people's rights. However, I also believe that deleted articles and text deleted from articles should be accessible from a separate website (such as Deletionpedia) which proclaims itself as completely uncensored. This arrangement makes it possible for search engines and governments to block this separate site easily when desired, yet to provide a source for investigating rights violations and satisfying other valid inquiries. Clearly, a WP article about such a site is WP:NOTE and does not a priori compromise the self-censorship of WP. David Spector 17:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered as recently as 20 Oct 2009 [65] in de:PC-Welt. Exceeds WP:NOTNEWS in my view. Pcap ping 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and ironically I'm the one who nominated it for the first AfD. I'm not particularly a fan of the site, but I think it has received sufficient independent coverage to be considered notable still. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep.--Milowent (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per mercurywoodrose -Tracer9999 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Hey neckbeards, the site is referenced 13 times here on wiki. Better start a discussion and delete them all! Hurry![reply]

ReactiveMicro.com[edit]

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

Unsourced computer parts website, not an OEM and possibly going out of business. MBisanz ^talk

01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete: Almost a speedy. An unreferenced advert, with no encyclopedic value. Mattg82 (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, spammy, probably some original research and doesn't establish notability. fetchcomms☛ 05:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The company does appear to be genuine, and I've found a few references - [66], [67], [68]. Not sure how notable they are, mind (and there are lots more non-notable ones in chats etc). -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious spam. Haakon (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The Site is not SPAM, and the company has been in business since 1991. Why would anyone say the Site is SPAM? Because it's well written and run? A simple check of the CSA2 UseNet would prove otherwise. And whoever in their right mind really thinks Wiki is the place to advertise (no offense Wiki) to attract business? The ReactiveMicro.com Site has been around since 2005 in one form or another. We are the ONLY company out there that actively reverse engineers and clones Apple's equipment from 1985-1990. We are the only 'real' company out there that supports Apple II products on a full time basis, and I take that very seriously. I added the article and links from other articles to specifically help new users from the Apple II Community find available resources. Isn't this what Wiki is partly about? Maybe I've missed something, but removing the article would be akin to removing GE because they just happen to sell stuff. Users from the Apple II Community have actively added and made corrections as they have seen fit. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see why such an issue with the page? Reactive1 (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I would like to make a repllies to the comments here--althought I am not too sure if this is the right way to make a comment on this subject matter.

1. MDisanz stated that it is "unsourced computer parts website, not an OEM and possibly going out of business."

Well, the fact that there is no company in the world that is in business that was in business when the apple2's were being made is one fact to point out. That being said, there is no OEM except for a select few companies, one of which is reactivemicro, ultimateapple2, a2retrosystems, 8bitsystem, 16sector, and maybe a few others at most. All of the products produced are new, manufactured by hand, at the location of this company. All PCB facrication and assembly is done inhouse. All items with an exception of just a few are items that are OEM and branded as such.

2. Mattg82 said "Almost a speedy. An unreferenced advert, with no encyclopedic value."

Not sure why it would be a speedy, as his comment almost doesnt have any type of factual elements to back up why it would almost be a speedy. As for being unreferenced, please expand on this so that full compliance can be met and be specific. If there is an issue with unreferenced items being listed, and that is gounds for a deletion, please elaborate on what needs to be addressed. As for the last part of the comment of "no encyclopedia value", I would have to ask why it holds no value because there seems to be lots of value to the community as this community is growing each and every day even in this rocky economy. People searching wiki will see that there is a big company who manufactures products for the vintage commiunity and is notoriable.

3. Boing! said "The company does appear to be genuine, and I've found a few references " ---Yes, it is totally genuine. Thank you for doing some research to at least chime in on this in a fair and balanced manner. We really appreciate your time on this and look forward to any help that you can provide.

4. Haakon said "obvious spam." ---Sorry, not spam at all at least from our prospective. Hakkon, do you participate in the vintage computer hobby? Do you own an Apple2? Do you have knowledge about this particular hobby of vintage computing yourself? I would love to agree with your comment on this subject matter, but I simply have to disagree. There are people of the community that apprecitae a wiki article and dont find it is not spam like at all.

We am not attacking anyone here and we dont take anything at all personal. We do however want to be heard and feel that by responding to comments directly will help get all of the issues corrected. Our goal here is to be in full compliance with all of your rules. Please help us in achieving this goal. Amart79196 (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy:WP has very strict guidelines on Notability; articles need to be verifiable with reliable sources. If we look at the second sentence in the article, The only such company left that reproduces Apple II related hardware.; if this was mentioned in an Apple related magazine for example, it would help the website meet notability requirements.

At this stage I don't believe your company meets this criteria but I nothing against copying this article to your user space. Mattg82 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://a2central.com, the leading Apple II hobby Site out there for news and updates, has our Site listed under the Vendors section (bottom left). A quick search of the Site reveals over three pages of articles written about us, and hobbyist who we vend/support for. Here's a Japanese Site that references us: http://www.apple2world.jp/mediawiki/index.php/ReactiveMicro.com. Yeah, that's English that mentions we're the only ones who do what we do. I'd also mention the work we've done to reverse engineer the SC-01 speech chip, but I see that too has been removed already from the Wiki page. One site that didn't forget us though: http://redcedar.com/sc01.htm Enough sites? I'm still not understanding the big deal about the page being left up? I don't see how we ever offended anyone. It's not like we're hawking items on it. We referenced projects and partnerships, and all for the benefit of the Apple II Community and those researching the Apple II in general. As far an 'notability', compared to Microsoft I would agree. We're a company geared to support hobbyists, destined for nothing more then trying to expand upon an old platform, to heighten the users retro experience, and to offer help and support where we can. But within the Apple II Community, we are peerless, and I strongly believe the facts will support that statement.Reactive1 (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't offended anybody, its just that AFD is a piranha club; anything remotely seen as advertising will usually get the chop. I sympathize with you being just a hobbyists website and that you created the article in good faith which is why I recommend you copy the article to your user space. This will give you the wiki space you want and it can still be linked to from other websites. Mattg82 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As for the concern on an Apple related magazine for notability, "juicedGS" is the last known publication which is still produced for the apple2. This publication should provide the notability what is in question. Hopefully that will put the notability issue to rest. If there is anything else that needs to be addressed, please comment here so that we can work on correcting this wiki article and to get off the AfD list. Amart79196 (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CSD#G3 and WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miller's Last Theorem[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Miller's Last Theorem

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

Author asserts this is an original theory; OR. - Philippe 01:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, Needs references or proof being a non-original research --Rirunmot 01:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Delete. Original research which is apparently meant as a joke, not an actual theorem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, not only original research, but also made up at school one day, and a complete joke by mathematical standards. It relies on human subjectivity! JIP | Talk 06:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SUPREME SPEEDY DELETE as nonsense. WP:IAR if we must, let us not waste any further time here. Delete as it violates our policy against original research of this sort. JBsupreme (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not actually OR at all, it's just a schoolboy prank -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually it's just absurd humor. --George100 (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - G3, WP:MADEUP. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 15:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm inclined to say that it's none of the above. Click on the link, track it to the advertisement for Milljo Software, Inc. Mandsford (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no advertisement on the page it links to. All there is is a direct copy of the text of the article plus an illustrating picture. It's all equally worthless, but I don't see how it is advertising anything. JIP | Talk 16:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The url us "http://milljosoftware.com/mlt.html" - if you remove the "/mlt.html" you get the company site. But having said that, I don't think this article is advertising, because the site looks defunct - copyright 2006 but still "under construction", with the images broken (and it's advertising web design!). -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Super delete via WP:IAR per JBSupreme. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a card-carrying Inclusionist, but even I have my standards. If it's a Big Thing, it will be back, and armed a Citation Cannon. Ezratrumpet (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW Oh god, oh god, make the stupid stop... please... To anyone who "got" geometry or high-school algebra, it's obvious nonsense. Studerby (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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