< 17 December	19 December >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nom withdrawn, no votes to delete. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 01:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Caton[edit]

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

None of the sources except the book review look reliable (and that one doesn't mention Caton, just the business). The rest are websites of private businesses. I wasn't able to turn anything reliable up after a search. Given the serious claims maybe I should have straight speedied this but I'm checking here to make sure no one else can produce anything reliable first. delldot ∇. 23:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The FDA source[1] (see page 26), while primary, seems to confirm that this is both WP:V and WP:N. There are plenty of sources on Google news[2], e.g. this AP article on an NBC affiliate website. Pburka (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article definitely needs to be edited to remove references to potentially self-interested claims from competitors and provide more reliable sources, but such sources do appear to exist. For example: [3], [4], [5]. Note that some of this coverage is unrelated to his criminal activity, so his notability is not based solely on that. --RL0919 (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article reflects a figure of consistent and current interest. Background in the article, although incomplete, merits further development. Mr. Caton appears to be a person whose activities exemplify typical "anti-establishment, anti-government" activities in the alternative health field.Jettparmer (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, nom withdrawn after seeing the massive pile of sources Pburka turned up--not sure how I missed those in my own search. Sorry all. But yeah, the claims in the article do need to be better ref'd. delldot ∇. 22:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Blomberg[edit]

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

Received a reward for heroism and gallantry, however it's only the Distinguished Service Cross (United States) (I'm not belittling the award, just saying it's not the top award), and has been awarded to over 13,000 other individuals. I'm nominating it because I don't believe someone is inherently notable just because they're received this award. I'd also like to use this as a test case as the article creator (Packerfansam (talk · contribs)), who is doing sterling work, is creating hundreds of these articles and I don't want them to continue doing hard work if they'll end up being deleted due to the time they're putting into it. So tell me, is one of 13,000+ people earning a second tier military award notable? Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross yes, DSC, I don't believe so. Canterbury Tail talk 23:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILPEOPLE notes that only those awarded a nations highest award are notable, or those who win a second highest award on multiple occasions.Canterbury Tail talk 23:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are also upwards of 100+ similar articles with the same claims to notability. Canterbury Tail talk 03:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any significant coverage of him. I do not think receiving the second highest award is in itself notable, as it looks right now that is his only claim to notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The DSC was awarded in fewer numbers than the German Knight's Cross, but I don't think that there have been too many AfDs for winners of that award. Let's establish some parity here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 December 2009
- There is a difference here; the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was the highest decoration, while the Distinguished Service Cross is among the second. Also, there is the basis of reliable sources. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In any case, I don't think there's a great case for saying a Knight's Cross holder is inherently notable. A holder of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves or above probably is, but not the unadorned Knight's Cross. It was too common (over 7,000 awarded in a single war is just too ubiquitous, compared to 181 Victoria Crosses and 464 Medals of Honor for the same war - I don't really think it can be considered a first tier award in that sense). I would certainly support deletion of an article on a Knight's Cross holder who was solely notable for being a recipient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. Although the award of the Distinguished Service Cross is highly admirable, it does not make one notable enough for inclusion per Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly with the extreme lack of sources on the subject aside from the decoration's citation. If there were further sources on the subject's life than perhaps the guidelines would be satisfied, but I do not believe this is so. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable sources with more than a passing mention in it, thus failing WP:GNG. At the heart of it, that's why it fails and should be deleted, although the fact that the recipient only got the DSC (not maligning, a very good achievement) and not something like the Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross doesn't help either. Skinny87 (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He would have to have had at least one other award at this level to be considered for an article unless he did something else notable. A holder of a first tier decoration is inherently notable; a holder of a second tier decoration is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for individuals Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as doesn't meet notability standard. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination reasoning. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wondered about this when I saw the author creating a slew of these articles, but didn't want to be the one to step up and say that they were all non-notable. It's true that WP:ANYBIO says a person who does not meet GNG may still be notable if he "has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one." In one sense, the Distinguished Service Cross is notable—we have an article on it—but then we have an article on the Purple Heart too, and we've given out 1.3 million of those. So I thoroughly agree that the Distinguished Service Cross doesn't count (without more, obviously; see here). I think the idea of the ANYBIO guideline is to streamline the notability consideration of people who receive or are nominated for awards whose recipients and nominees are generally notable under GNG. But DSC recipients and nominees are generally non-notable under GNG (Henry Blomberg too), so I don't think a case for notability can rest on this award alone. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Or "nomination withdrawn". Your choice. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eladio Perez[edit]

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

Not notable, no sources. A little piece here appears to confirm the death, but it isn't enough to tie him to the rest of the story given in article. A few bits here and there found on blogs-not reliable sources-but even those raise doubts about notability. They also would suggest the biography here was a well-sanitized portrait, and that even if he were notable, it would be for very different reasons than his work in local politics. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-Sources were found showing he served in the national congress, not a local official. Article improvements made leaving only sourced claims.Professor marginalia (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature, as confirmed by the source presented by the nominator and others that I have added to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Members of national legislatures always pass WP:POLITICIAN. --NellieBly (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:POLITICIAN. Cirt (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of bus routes in London. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E7 bus[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. I fail to see what value this article adds to wikipedia when the bus route is available in its entirety on the bus company website. Biker Biker (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing notable about this bus route. Singularity42 (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Redirect to List of bus routes in London#Letter prefixes, for reasons stated below. Singularity42 (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London. Title should have been "London Bus Route E7" (edit: or what Thryduulf suggested below), which it should be if anyone tries to make a worthy article on it in the future. --Oakshade (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London#Letter prefixes without prejudice. Although as it stands this page is not encyclopaedia material, it is possible to write encyclopaedic articles on bus routes. I don't know whether an encyclopaedic article about this route doable or not, but if it is it should be at London Buses route E7, a title that already redirects to the list, per the other members of category:Bus routes in London (note this is not the same title Oakshade suggested). Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not impossible that a bus route is notable, but simply writing the route isn't. Also, bus routes change so often this would be impossible to maintain. I don't think a redirect from this title is useful as there's surely more than one E7 bus route in the world. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone knows of another E7 they can change the redirect to a dab or to an article about that bus route with an appropriate hatnote at that time. To me it seems a very useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As the List of bus routes in London#Letter prefixes already contains an entry for the E7, I think the redirect is the best idea. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as others have suggested. If kept, rename to "E7 (ondon bus route)" or such like. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although my instinct is to delete, I note that the great majority of bus routes on that large list have their own article. Presumably this one has been singledout because its title is non-standard. Sussexonian (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the nominator, so I can't be sure, but that might be why it was noticed. However if you compare the content of this article with say London Buses route 50 you can see there is also a tremendous difference in quality. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nominator blocked. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Fulp[edit]

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

While Newgrounds might be notable, that does not make members of it's staff any same. URBAN-ANDY (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE If Tom Fulp isn't notable then Newgrounds isn't either!!!111 68.221.220.223 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk declined It's notable. He is actively listed on the newgrounds website, is accessible as a easter egg for some reasons. --FA
IL!
^Talk 23:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Nominator has been blocked as a sock; no opinion on Tom Fulp, which I've not even looked at. Jack Merridew 23:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Fulp is both a famous programmer, and the owner/administrator of an extremely popular website. Some of his notoriety is from his work on the console games Alien Hominid and Castle Crashers, while the majority of it is from his website, Newgrounds. He is definitely a notable person, worthy of an article. -Rob^talk 03:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this article has been boldly merged and redirected to Newgrounds by User:Computer97. I support keeping the content on that page - there's not really enough to justify a separate article - however, the redirect should be kept as well for GFDL reasons. Meanwhile, this AFD should probably be speedy-closed as a nomination by a banned user. Robofish (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 for the third time today, and salt. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was entered again with a middle initial; I have speedy deleted it and have protected it against re-creation under either name. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McMurrer[edit]

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

Based on the author's user name, this is an autobiography. I don't see any basis for meeting WP:BIO. His "references" are all pages of his own creation. except for one website for a film that he worked on as a grip/intern. He says he's an actor who's worked on several films and TV shows but IMDB has him listed only on a 45-minute documentary that was apparently made about him by a filmmaker with only one other film to her credit. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Robert McMurrer but, a big fan of his poetry. My real name is Peter Smith and I did meet Mr. McMurrer once and we did talked but, I have no contact with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcmurrer (talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this article which has already been deleted twice today. 'Worked on several films' and 'background actor' are not assertions of notability. Steamroller Assault (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The account who created this AfD was likely a sockpuppet. If you wish to reopen this AfD, please feel free to do so. NW (Talk) 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars sequel trilogy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I love SW but this article shouldn't be at wikipedia. A gang of people speculated about whether a bunch of films would be made, and the producers pondered it and then declined. It's a non-story and a lot of successful films have a will-they-won't-they sequel debate. No matter now many sources there are, it'll always be the same. Someone in the last discussion said "WP:CRYSTAL says we have to delete an article about a film that exists but has not been released, yet here is an article about a film that does not exist nor is anybody planning to start making it". We need to note that this speculation happened, so I would be willing to develop a paragraph in the main SW article. Delete because of WP:SYN (collection of random rumours) and WP:CRYSTAL. Starwarsdeathstar (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)— Starwarsdeathstar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge into Star Wars. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or MAYBE merge into Star Wars. As I mentioned in the original AFD, there is nothing notable here. Plans for a trilogy that never happened is not notable enough for it's own article. Either delete it or give it a small section in the Star Wars article (a lot of the content in this article could be cut out). TJ Spyke 22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just as I voted the last time. This isn't a case of WP:CRYSTAL, it's a sufficiently referenced article on an extremely notable series. Even if they never exist, they're notable enough (and sourced well enough) to have an entry detailing them and why they're not actally being made. Dayewalker (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As I said in the prior AFD (only six months ago), the article is more than adequately sourced with many significant coverage from reliable third-party sources, many of them major news outlets. While Lucasfilm's "official story" on the sequel films *now* is that they were never planned, this is historically inaccurate, based on relevant cites over the years. And, as shown by the wealth of information in the article, this would overwhelm the main Star Wars article, and a separate topic is justified. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is this Afd even serious?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a rational- Your breaking of WP:AGF and WP:ILIKEIT isn't a good excuse to save the article. Starwarsdeathstar (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale provided by the comments above speak for themselves and don't accuse me of breaking WP:AGF or WP:ILIKEIT as I 1. Do not even know the nominator and 2. Do not follow Star Wars at all, but that does not excuse its notability.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This easily passes the test of independent notability, as the sources demonstrate. It's been news since at least 1980, when the words "Episode V" appeared on the opening for The Empire Strikes Back [6] and the matter was revisited in 1983 and 1997 [7]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The_Marvelous_Misadventures_of_Flapjack#Video_Game. Redirect for now. Anyone interested in merging content can access the history. Tone 15:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack: The Video Game[edit]

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

My prod on this article was rejected, but I stand by my original opinion, which was as follows: An (admitted) quick google seach shows me nothing that indicates notability for this game. The article itself states that little about it is known except it is planned to be released in 2010. I feel this is well in the realm of WP:CRYSTAL (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Joe Chill and Marijn Hoekstra is it really that hard to refer to WP:CRYSTALBALL by its proper name, or do you really feel the need to shorten it?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't quite get it matters what shortcut for Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is used. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if editors used the main shortcut. Thank you.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? If there even is such a thing as a main shortcut, which I really didn't know. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to [8]], CRYSTAL is used much more often than CRYSTALBALL. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge content into The_Marvelous_Misadventures_of_Flapjack#Video_Game. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Codendi[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product; article by single-issue user who was blocked for spamming. Article gives no significant sources, nor was I able to find any such coverage. Haakon (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete a7 product written by spammer. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete - I cannot find significant coverage to make a notability claim. --16x9 (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an open-source collaborative development platform .... Its features include bug tracking, versioning integration (Subversion and CVS), document/requirements management, reporting, tests, and various plugins. In other words, this is about the business of supervising computer programmers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Evil bastards! Don't forget to vote on livigent, which is a lot worse! ;) Pcap ping 22:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
  - Well, yeah ... and neither the nomination nor any of the previous comments mentioned the sort of product it was. I just supply the missing context. ;) - mSmerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It looks like an internal open source product from Xerox Research Europe. [9]. The 2008 award appears genuine [10], but I don't think it adds much to notability given the restrictions: best open source produced by large company, uh! Plus, it looks like a closed club thing, since the sponsors are other big companies. It doesn't look like anyone else cares about this product, and the other ghits on the Lutèce d'Or award seem marginal, e.g. [11], [12]... Pcap ping 22:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over You (Girlicious song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song that has not charted. Per WP:NSONG "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song" but author contested redirection. I42 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The song has yet to be released, and there has yet to chart. Their is enough information and sources on the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by S2daam (talk • contribs)

Delete a non-charting single that is not notable enough for its own article (upmerge it to the relevant album).--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "...a clip was released to the girls' Myspace." Pretty much says that the band no longer has major label distribution despite their start on a reality show (and even if they do releasing a song on MySpace is not a major event). Fails WP:N. Nate • (chatter) 06:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The group has been signed to Universal Music Canada to generate airplay to the Canadian market. Now some radio stations are playing the song, so there's no problem at all. So my verdict is Remain (Source: http://girliciousweb.net/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh001175 (talk • contribs)
- That site is disqualified as being used as a source per WP:FANSITE. Even then they aren't Canadian artists so any sources from there (especially as something as silly as a song popularity contest on a radio station) do not matter within this article. Nate • (chatter) 06:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - If they are notable in Canada, they are notable period. I do not understand why sources from Canada do not matter within an article on an American band. Should all American sources be purged from Beatles articles because The Beatles are British? Rlendog (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please sign your posts. The nominator is stating the facts and not being harsh. And again in this nomination American sources must be used as that is the band's nation of origination. Nate • (chatter) 07:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This argument that only sites in the band's nation of origin can be used is frankly nonsense. Rlendog (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait this single is more than likely going to chart in Canada (at least) but it doesn't have enough references to have it's own page though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.161.93 (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theuhohreo (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Knock it off with adding Canadian mentions. Unless the entire band has declared themselves Canadian citizens suddenly, they are all unimportant for what is an American band. American sources and American charts must be used in this article and all mentions of Canada will continue to be removed. Nate • (chatter) 23:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - "Knock it off with adding Candian mentions"? "American sources and American charts must be used in this article and all mentions of Canada will continue to be removed?" Which policy are you referring to? If you are going to instruct editors what they "must" do and what they should "knock off", please do so consistently with policy. Rlendog (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whilst I appreciate your supporting the nomination, I cannot see any logic in your argument that Canadian sources are irrlevant. I42 (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Girlicious is clearly an American band, and for the purposes of music articles most of them should focus on the measurements from the artist/band's nation of their origin. The article has found no American sources at all and is relying exclusively on irrelevant Canadian statistics, including a radio station gimmick in Halifax and a Twitter post mentioning Canadian releases; I would love to see American statistics to even move towards a weak delete. Nate • (chatter) 10:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So what they are American? If they attain notability elsewhere, that's still notability. Which policy says otherwise? I42 (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - What policy or guideline states that "for the purposes of music articles most of them should focus on the measurements from the artist/band's nation of their origin"? That is simply untrue. Rlendog (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I see are mentions on forums, blogs, fansites and the like. I can not find anything that would be considered "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is needed for an article to meet WP:NSONGS. I don't have a problem giving it a week or so to see if this charts and/or becomes a notable song, but at this time it's not. Gongshow ^Talk 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they were notable in Canada they'd pass WP:BAND even if no American other than their families had ever heard of them. Notability has no connection whatsoever to nationality one way or the other. But they don't seem to be notable in Canada or anywhere else right now. --NellieBly (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article seems premature, but given that it has been created and the single has already been released, it seems best to give a short amount of time to see if it does actually chart in Canada before deleting. If it does chart in Canada it would meet WP:MUSIC, any nonsense above about only American (presumably meaning "U.S.") statistics counting notwithstanding. Rlendog (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I don't care if the article stays or goes, but I'd like to add my voice to those stating that the claim that an article on an American band must display notability in the USA specifically is one of the more ludicrous things I've ever read on WP. Presumably Sixteen Stone should be deleted because Bush was a British band and therefore a #4 US chart placing "doesn't count"........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response I will take back my call for exclusively American sources. It was more about the article using a few references because the article editors seemed to be Canadian and only looking for local references rather than spread them out to other countries (which should be done). However the ones currently in the article are all Twitter and a band fansite, when it really needs much better sourcing. Nate • (chatter) 06:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ignore the irrelevant discussion about nationalities. An individual song is rarely notable, so any encyclopedic information should be in the band's article. Sussexonian (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, author has changed it to an implausible redirect, effectively making this a WP:CSD#G7/WP:CSD#R3. No need to drag this out. Amalthea 11:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girlicious Second Studio Album[edit]

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

An album with no release date fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed by author without explanation. I42 (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Author has replaced article (removing AfD tag) as a redir to the band article. I42 (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.O.L.O. (Players Only Live Once)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An album with no release date. Also, a mixtape which is by definition non-notable. I42 (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the previous AfD. Also tagged for speedy deletion. I42 (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. CSD G4 should cover this one. It is a still, as of yet, unreleased mixtape. JBsupreme (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kodiak Island UFO sighting[edit]

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

Here are the facts: In September 2007 something crashed somewhere in the vicinity of Kodiak Island. The local paper devoted a few paragraphs to it. A Wikipedia article based on that report and subsequent postings at UFO websites was created. The article has languished in this state for nearly two years, with only one reliable source, and that just a single column story in a local paper. It's worth noting that nearby news organs in Anchorage and on the Kenai Peninsula did not pick up this story. Seems to fail the notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, there isn't enough here to support an article. If additional sources became available, it would be a different story - but there have been 2 years during which something could have been found, and nothing. My own (limited) search reveals nothing at all. So, delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacking any followup, there's no way that it can be determined whether this is truly notable or not. No coverage for two years suggests it's probably a minor event. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So. Beeblebrox, you and I had a little disagreement when I first started the article and it has been refined and edited while under the Wikipedia:Spotlight for several months. This event occured in September of 2007, more than two years prior to today. Suddenly, you feel the urge to delete it? Tell me, are any of you people familiar with the scale of the majority of major UFO sightings? They last for only a few seconds, at best, and rarely occur over a major metropolitan center. The UFO was not sighted over Anchorage, but Kodiak, Alaska and Homer, Alaska. Because there is a such a small population, you, Voiceofreason01, UltraExactZZ and Tony Fox declare that it does not deserve Wikipedia. However, take the scale and match it up with other UFO sightings with articles. Most of them contain similar witness testimonies and similar numbers.

Honestly, I cannot discuss this much further as I have progressed past this article and focus mostly upon other Wikipedia articles and more real-world events. Should you delete this article, may I suggest you nominate the other UFO articles for deletion? Assuming that you're naming UFO sightings insignificant, it will be completely understandable. DarthBotto_talk•cont 16:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that all UFO sightings are non-notable, just this one. (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) Frankly this had more or less fallen off my radar a long time ago, then I noticed someone editing it today and decided to see if it had progressed any. It had not. (I don't see the spotlight related improvements you refer to.) I also have yet to see the evidence that anyone in Homer witnessed this. (This would be WP:OR, but I would note that I live in the Homer area and have never heard anyone here mention this) Still only the 1 good source. Not even the Homer News or Anchorage Daily News or even the Peninsula Clarion, who will print just about anything, seemed to feel it was a newsworthy event. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, DarthBotto, my concern begins and ends with the sourcing. If the event is to have an article, it will need reliable sources. Such sources have not been found. As a result, I recommend that we delete the article. If there are sources, and if they meet our policy requirements, then by all means - keep. I'm saying that I don't see those sources. The size of the community is irrelevant to notability, so long as the coverage is there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 06:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless reliable sources can be found to establish notability. Artw (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Wikipedia is not an archive of minor news stories. Not notable.Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysto & Pizzi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for failing the notability guideline since September 2009 and has not improved much since. URBAN-ANDY (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 (tagged), and nom. WuhWuzDat 20:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the speedy tag after reviewing the old version. This version of the article is improved over the earlier one, although serious issues do remain. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While a do see a source providing some depth of coverage of them,[13] I don't see enough to clear the hurdles of WP:GNG, nor do I see enough in their credits that they meet WP:BAND or similar specific notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, the coverage is minimal for these two, and I don't think they're on the high side of WP:BAND at this point. I may be wrong, and would be happy to reconsider with further information. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Nominator has been blocked as a sock; no opinion on Mysto & Pizzi, which I've not even looked at. Jack Merridew 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: User is a banned sock of Pickbothmanlol. AfroUnderscoreStud (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)— AfroUnderscoreStud (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Obvious blocked sock is obvious.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 01:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As other editors, including myself, favor deletion of the article, a speedy keep is not appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the nominator is banned for socking. AfroUnderscoreStud (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that invalidate the debate? Eeekster (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The nominator's identification as a sockpuppet of a banned user doesn't mean the page shouldn't be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And since AfD discussions are about the reasoning to delete/keep the article more than simple headcount, I trust the closing admin can discount what happened to the account of the nominator while still taking into account those editors who do, in good faith, agree with the nomination and think it should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very clearly non-notable musical group.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the many reason already cited. Eeekster (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how the sources or their accomplishments meet the notability guidelines. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 15:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reasons to keep prevail here in my opinion. Article needs some work, though. Tone 15:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wave Energy Drink[edit]

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

Delete. Unremarkable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In 5 minutes I easily found reliable sources about the drink: this is excellent, this one too, this is an okay source for the NASCAR info, very good, a GOLDEN source from a business magazine. I found these all in the first 2 pages on google. Royal broil 01:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, add the sources, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor who started the article asked what needs to happen to keep the article. I didn't add the sources because he needs to learn how to do it himself and this is the best way to force him to do it. Having him learn how to do it right should save time in the long run. I see a bunch of deletion warnings on his talk page. Royal broil 12:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just another energy drink. no matter how many sources exist, it is just another plain unexceptional energy drink. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep Those that are trying to delete this page need to READ the article. It is a NASCAR Sprint Cup sponsor. This in itself is plenty of reason for it to have an article on Wikipedia. As for it being "just another energy drink", the numerous other energy drinks all have articles. Why should this one not have one?--Johncoracing48 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep ... the article can be improved, but the reliable sources exist now, and they will continue to improve. Not that this is a great article, but the sources confirm notability per our policies and guidelines. — Ched : ? 02:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Filmography[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With nothing more than “Non-notable book”, busybody Liefting condemned the page for The Irish Filmography within 10 minutes after creation of the page had begun, and well before it was completed with inline citation and link to reviews. Obviously he has never seen the book, and almost certainly knows nothing about film reference literature. It is a comprehensive non-fiction reference book of some 2,000 titles covering the first century of Irish cinema, including every feature and short produced in Ireland, as well as virtually every film about Ireland and Irish people produced outside Ireland. Aardvarkzz (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring it as a non-notable book is sufficient for an AfD. There is nothing wrong with putting an AfD up immediately after article creation. Longevity on WP will not give an article a better reason to remain on WP. Also, an AfD is not like a speedy deletion where the article can be summarily removed. AfDs take at least a week to process. As for being called a "busybody" not only is that uncivil as already pointed out but it is up to every WP editor to be such a "busybody". What you are calling being a busybody I would call peer review - something WP needs a lot of. If you are creating an article and decide to save it and work on it latter you can use the ((underconstruction)) tag. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the book is itself encyclopaedic, and the subject long neglected. Whilst it might be over-egging to call it scholarship, it is at least as notable as the endless procession of scifi books descibed in such detail--Brunnian (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, referring to another editor as a "busybody" is uncivil, so let's not do that again, please, Aardvarkzz? Secondly, I find that while there's enough references to the book to prove that it exists, there are very few that actually deal with discussing the book directly - most of what I've been able to find have been passing mentions of it. Unless there are some good references that are available that review the book itself, then it doesn't meet the requirements for inclusion here. Delete unless someone can provide said references. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sourcing looks somewhat better, I suppose. Weak keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can't start having articles about every book on the market, unless it is known almost around the world (Guiness book of records, Webster dictionary, Bible, etc.). In other words, I agree with the "Non-notable". -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page because it describes the definitive reference book about the entire body of films in a country’s first 100 years of cinema. I am an expert in the subject of movie and film literature. None of the other people who have commented for or against claim to have any knowledge or interest in the subject of cinema and its literature. I create pages only for people, books, periodicals, etc. that are unquestionably important and legitimate parts of cinema and its history. It is essential that those who render judgment for or against this or any other book have competence in the book’s subject. Aardvarkzz (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not correct. It's essential that people from both sides of this discussion show how it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Do you have citations that prove the importance of the book as you state? If so, then you need to present them. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand and further source per WP:IMPROVE, WP:POTENTIAL, WP:Notability (books), WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP, WP:DEADLINE, et al. While sending an article to AFD within minutes of creation is within guideline, it might have been better all around to have done a quick search to see if sources were available and then tagged it for such so the author might know of concerns. WP:ATD suggests many other ways an article might be improved to serve the project rather than nominating deletion. Available sources indicate the book's notability through its being itself used as an encyclopedic and accepted research source for Irish Film by both educational institutions and film industry [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31].. and many, many more. And note, educational tomes rarely get looked at by nationally known reviewers, and so guideline allows their notability to be considered in context to what they are and who they serve. With respects, IMHO even the most minimal of WP:BEFORE should have prevented this being sent to AFD. Kudos to User:Aardvarkzz for bringing this article aboard to improve Wikipedia. Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt above. Early AFD nominations may be permitted, but nominators should realize the hazards of nominating articles at a very early stage. Many editors, especially newer editors and those at public computers, create articles in mainspace, saving as they go along. If the article they're working on is nominated before it's finished, the nomination usually effectively ends any further updates from that editor. A very early nomination can also feel like a slap in the face to a new editor, who may interpret the AFD as "we don't want you here" and quit the project. --NellieBly (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MichaelQSchmidt has once again found plenty of sources. A champion of the Rescue Squadron. And I'd like to point out that nominating an article the same day it was created, is rather lame. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do so. Dream Focus 09:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already mentioned there is nothing wrong with putting an article up for deletion a short time after it was created. If it is not notable there is no reason for it to remain on WP. Leaving the article on WP does not make it any more notable. The new pages list exists for just this very reason - to vet any new articles for suitability. If articles are not checked at via the new pages patrol they will disappear into WP and will have less of a chance of being reviewed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Alan_Liefting: As such is within guideline, perhaps User:Dream Focus should be less concerned with your good faith nomination 10 minutes after the article's creation. My own concern is your nomination popping in between a series of the author's active edits improving the article... your nomination being only one minute after one of the author's ongoing edits [32] and one minute before his next [33]. The author's pique above was unfortunate, but perhaps understandable. All I might advise is temperance and patience when a new article is being created, and perhaps a discussion with the author about your concerns. If a discussion had been initiated, your concerns would have been addressed and we might not be at this AFD today. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical comment. Jimmy Wales wants WP to be the sum of human knowledge. This is a bold but laudable goal. Is it really able to be achieved? Should a limitation be placed on the extent of documenting the sum of human knowledge? The sum of human knowledge is an extremely large body of work. WP does limit it to that which is notable and verifiable, but even with these limitations there is huge amount of information that could be incorporated into WP. Should a level of notability be set such that all topics are included and those below are not (ie ignore the current level of establishing notability). This raises many questions of course. What is the level set at? How is notability established across topics in different fields of knowledge? Looking at one topic area, namely books, is an instructive exercise. WP already has many articles on books. All the books that fit within the WP requirements of notability and verifiability for books would probably amount to the total number of articles current on WP. Books are often reviewed so it is easy to obtain the necessary verification of the article contents. Now even if less that half of WP articles were about books would mean that the whole of WP is skewed to only one range of articles. There is already a degree of dissatisfaction with the inclusion of some articles relating to popular culture. The Pokemon character is a case in point. Do we carry on using the deletion process for article inclusion or should some sort of metric be developed so an article can be assigned a number to determine inclusion into WP? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps your observation might be better asked at Wikipedia:Village pump, so that Mister Wales' ideas and goals and hopes for a paperless encyclopedia might be further dicussed. While nice to pose your philosophical comment here, this discussion should remain focused on this article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, I agree with Alan about the great over-broadness of our criteria for books, though I am not quite sure how to make it more precise without discussing a large number of special cases. I think part of the problem is that the ones we write about tend to be somewhat random based on people's interests, rather than doing anything systematic, so the ones we do have are a mixed lot, rather than the most notable. In general, the place for routine books is the article on their author, and most encyclopedic works would normally do that as the default. In this particular case, I think the refs show that this is the standard reference book on a significant subject, and I would consider that as one of the key criteria. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fourth Google Books snippet from The myth of an Irish cinema: approaching Irish-themed films by‎ Michael Patrick Gillespie, says "Rockett, in his monumental reference book, The Irish Filmography, chooses not to engage the question beyond announcing his wide-ranging intention to ..." This does two things; first it characterizes the work as "monumental" (which means notably large) and then analyzes it. This is substantial coverage in secondary sources, and the nominator needs to conform to Wikipedia's rules WP:BEFORE, WP:PSTS and WP:N, so that I can get truly non-notable stuff deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 07:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not wishing to simply opine and move on, and out of respect for the article's author, I have been involved in expanding and sourcing the article since this discussion began. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It sounds useful for meeja studies types.Red Hurley (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A10 by Orangemike. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Road Chronicles[edit]

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

Non-notable, page does not establish notability either Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has plenty of third-party references to establish notability, but they are not in the usual location. Go to the reviews section, and start clicking links, and you will see reviews from reliable sources such as http://www.spin.com/reviews/tori-amos-abnormally-attracted-sin-universal-republic and http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20278652,00.html - Eastmain (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think. The article is a partial copy of Abnormally Attracted to Sin, and makes no reference to The Road Chronicles. Possibly the article's creator wanted to use the source article as a template. Tagged as csd-a10 - Eastmain (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speedy declined. The track list consists of a number of entries from Abnormally Attracted to Sin, but not all of them plus a number of items not on that album. Perhaps this is a later album by the same artist, with overlapping contents? If so it needs separate references for notability I would think, but it isn't a simple copy so it isn't an A10 speedy. DES ^(talk) 04:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On second look only one track is ommitted on the copy and none are added, although the order is changed. I have restored the speedy tag. DES ^(talk) 04:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye Girl's Electric Band[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Goodbye Girl's Electric Band (Tori Amos song)

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

Has absolutely no notability Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on cataloguing all of Amos' songs on Wikipedia. Many artists have both their albums and songs catalogued on Wikipedia. It should be any different for Amos. Also, if you have nothing to contribute to what I am trying to do, please don't throw any wrenches in the process either. It's quite unbecoming. MarkAlexisGabriel (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2009

Delete - I don't know of any artist who has a WP article for every single song they recorded, not even Elvis. A song which only exists as a bootleg recording from a soundcheck and for which the title isn't even confirmed clearly isn't notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suspect that every song that The Beatles recorded - or at least released - has a Wikipedia article, and there is certainly enough published about every Beatles song to warrant an article for each. But Tori Amos is not The Beatles, and I see no evidence of notability for this song. If I missed some such evidence, please provide links or titles of the published sources and I will gladly change my !vote. Rlendog (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I love Tori Amos, but this song has no notability to it. It's not unbecoming to delete this, it's merely keeping in line with the goals of Wikipedia, and that is to include information that is encyclopedic. --Pisceandreams (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Food Network Humor[edit]

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

Website for which notability is not sufficiently established. References are primary or a blog (supposedly a celebrity blog, but there's no article for the individual concerned). (Also needs a considerable cleanup because it's promotional and presented as a guide - those in themselves are not reason to delete, but suggest a possible COI by the writer.) Speedy tag (placed some time ago) removed without explanation by an anon IP. I42 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anon IP was the article's author, who was paid to write the article (and is now blocked by myself for abusive sock puppetry to hide his paid editing). Brandon (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Never the less the article's issues state good reason for deletion regardless of abusive sock puppetry. URBAN-ANDY (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — URBAN-ANDY has been blocked as a sock; no opinion on Food Network Humor, which I've not even looked at. Jack Merridew 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable website. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of any coverage by reliable sources, pretty much just obvious WP:SPAM. --RL0919 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion declined but delete anyway per above. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, amazing amount of sockpuppets! (although without them it would still be a delete) DRosin (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete There are no effective 3rd party sources to establish notability. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 19:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Livigent[edit]

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

Footnotes 1 and 4-6 are from the company's own site. Footnote 2 is a press release from one of their business partners. Footnote 3 appears to be from one of their clients. Footnote 7 is a Google search (!). And footnote 8 is a blog posting. So are the first two external links. The third does make passing mention of the product, but the point is that there are no multiple, independent sources providing in-depth coverage of Livigent. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM. With no real assertion made for regarding notability, no coverage from independent, reliable, third parties and the tone of the article this is obviously a self promotion. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're right: this is promotion. Otherwise, how can we call an article that talks about a product, describing its features? As such, I didn't fight the speedy deletion sentence and I won't fight your AfD one.

Please do whatever it takes to keep Wikipedia free of bias - like those unreliable informations from the manufacturer and non-independent third-party sources. Don't even bother to test them anymore, just count the references, see that they come from the manufacturer, from a Google search and some magazine/blogs, assert they are all biased, manipulative, self-promotional and whatnot. Assert and delete. Don't consider placing [citation needed] or asking for trimming of some paragraphs, just jump to the conclusion that this is WP:SPAM and delete it. No point wasting more time since you already know the truth about this product all too well. while (true) { history(); } (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sulk in a corner if you want to. I'd advise rather that you find the reliable independent sources. Sure, you are promoting the product. But if you can get within Wikipedia's framework for how an article should be, you could get away with it. Others have... This is just a brief mention, but it puts RnD in a position of importance (as I read it): http://www.wall-street.ro/articol/English-Version/65666/Big-Brother-Are-you-monitored-at-your-workplace.html Go on, see what you can find. Make the article just a bit less like a brochure. These discussions usually go on for seven days. I'm sure you can find something in that time. No blogs, no myspace, no linkedin, no forums, in fact, nothing editable (including Wikipedia...). Newspapers (with a translation here if in Romanian, for those of us who can only read it a bit), magazines (but not the PC World one where the author is PC World but the source is RnD), independent reviews, that sort of thing. Otherwise, come back when you've got a bit more exposure. Peridon (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked for secondary sources about this software (and I grok Romanian), but even in the Romanian IT press there's nothing beyond press releases published as news (thankfully attributed as such) [34], and another article in which they announce that they give free licenses to some schools. The wall-street.ro article is not about this product, it's about this kind of software, with only one sentence (a technical opinion) from a developer of this software. That's about all I could find as WP:SECONDARY sources, so it fails WP:N. The company might be more notable, but I won't look for that now. The creator of the article can request userification and transform it in an article about the company, which may have more changes to survive an AfD, based on the other wall-street.ro article, but even that is doubtful as it is a rather disorganized interview with the CEO and not a good source of facts about the company. The same goes for the 8th source of this article, which is another interview with the CEO. Pcap ping 22:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as the nominator withdrew. Airplaneman ^talk 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantykron[edit]

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

Notability not really established through multiple independent sources. We have a couple of press releases and a self-published review, but that's about it. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but I believe I can address your concerns. I can provide better references to established independent radio and television, in Romania and international, showing significant coverage Atlantykron at one of the oldest and most successful summer youth academies run by the United Nations in Eastern Europe.

I'd kindly ask for just a few days to pull and add these references for your review and consideration. Sincerely, Jennifer Sciencefrontiers42 (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added third party recognition and coverage of the event from the United Nations, The Romanian Journal, and the Romanian Telegraph.

The number of the cited distinguished international guests is significant. The participation of these guests, many recognized as notable by wikipedia, is documented in more than 30,000 photos and nearly 100 videos in the cited Academy archives available via the program's official website.

Can these archives be used in a better way to help meet the Wikipedia notability requirements? Or should we continue to add more 3rd party media coverage of the academy? thanks for you consiteration. Sciencefrontiers42 (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't claim any proficiency in Romanian, but from my knowledge of other Romance languages it looks to me as if these sources added to the article since nomination are independent and reliable and provide significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, withdrawn - those sources are indeed independent and in-depth. I do hope the article will draw more heavily on them and sound less promotional, but that's a matter for the editing process. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks OK to me. Peridon (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox parishes in Arkansas[edit]

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

At a previous AfD, I made the tactical mistake of bundling 5 lists together. Now, let's go one by one. Would anyone like to argue that a list of seven non-notable parishes constitutes a notable topic for a list? Biruitorul ^Talk 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with parent pages for their respective jurisdictions. This is not an article but a collection of external links. This idea could be revisited if and when there is an actual article to write on the Orthodox presence in Arkansas. Until then this is list cruft. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How bizarre that there's no List of Orthodox parishes in the United States, but we've got someone making individual articles for Alaska, California, D.C., etc. I have a feeling that someone did it that way because they didn't want to make an incomplete article. The solution isn't fifty-one separate articles. This is something one would work on in user space. Maybe one of the five articles is "really, really good" and it can be renamed and the other state articles can be merged to it. Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are other articles like this, such as Orthodox parishes in Washington D.C. and List of Orthodox parishes in Alaska, but they too have the same troubles that this one does. The collection itself isn't notable, and there's no valuable content worth merging elsewhere, as it all consists of improper external links. I suppose an encyclopedic article can be written about this subject, examining the history of the churches and of the religion in Arkansas, but the directory information that is here wouldn't be a part of that article. Them From Space 11:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I do not see why a list article of this kind is objectionable, but it should be List of Orthodox parishes in Arkansas. We also have Category:Lists of Orthodox parishes in the United States, which is also appropriate. I list article for whole US would probably not be. The possible problem with this article is that it is a mere link farm, but I am not sure that that is objectionable: the article covers various denominations, and is thus somethign that would not be readily available elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, a List of Orthodox parishes in the United States would be quite appropriate, since the number of these that are notable is quite small. If we thus meaningfully restricted the list (à la List of churches that are National Historic Landmarks in the United States, as opposed to pure directory material like List of churches in Sweden), then I don't see a problem with that. But a list of external links to seven parishes, none of which is remotely notable on its own? That seems a stretch in notability terms.
- As to the "not readily available elsewhere" argument: well, perhaps. But since when is aggregating information not readily available elsewhere our function? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset Spectator[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Official website is down; can't find any articles made by newspaper in Google news archive Mattg82 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.
Keep. See this article in The New York Times: Small-Town Weeklies of All Kinds Thriving; Revolution in Weeklies The Google News archive search provides the following excerpt from the article: "5 I}itk tabloid Somerset Spectator, which serves Franklin Town . ship in Somerset CQunty. The two former housewives, who now devote full time to the ..." (The transcription errors are a function of imperfect OCR, not my typing.) The Google News archive search has other references to the newspaper, as well as to one with a similar name in Rhode Island. - Eastmain (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In 2001, this was one of the newspapers of record for the county[35]. Pburka (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability does not disappear if the newspaper does. That the website is no longer active, or if the newspaper is defunct, doesn't affect notability. Lots of things don't exist anymore and still are notable. --Jayron32 00:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Somerset County, New Jersey. This was my assessment at the prior AfD, and it hasn't changed. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per my reasoning from the last AFD, which hasn't changed. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is, or was, a prominent local newspaper. As Jayron32 noted, notability is not temporary. The official website being down, therefore, is not a good reason for deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Eastmain DRosin (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only Seven Left[edit]

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

Non-notable band lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. . Joe Chill (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:Band. South Bay (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding in-depth coverage; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 19:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mother nation[edit]

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

Seems like a manifesto term made by a non-notable UK political party unrelated to currently linked party (Conservatives). Mattg82 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the term may have been coined here. However, I can't see any uses of this term outside this blog. If someone does find where it's being used, this term should really go in the article of the person/group who is using it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think its use is not widespread enough to justify notability. Almost something of a WP:NEO violation, but it's not quite a neologism. Or maybe it is, I can't make up my mind, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a phrase used once only in 2006 by an grouping as listed by User:Chris Neville-Smith with a Web site at progcon.org which is now dead. No notability at all and quite possibly never intended to be a new political idea. Sussexonian (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postwar reconstruction[edit]

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

Fails on WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Mattg82 (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To which war is this term most commonly associated? Abductive (reasoning) 21:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A3. I have tagged the article. — æk ^Talk 00:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Demi Lovato. Feel free to merge appropriately Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember December[edit]

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

No cover versions, has not charted, has won no awards: fails WP:NSONGS. Efforts to redirect the article have been thwarted. —Kww(talk) 17:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if there's anything that is useful and redirect to the album article. It shouldn't be a standalone article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the song as it is a released single and is part of her singles chronolgy. It seems silly to delete it as it is a valid single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.92.182 (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Kww and Tony Fox. Decodet (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as above. Songs are rarely notable enough to merit a separate article. Sussexonian (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G4, almost identical to the last version deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Kaiser[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotion for non-notable software product by single-issue user. Sources given are little more than testimonials and not significant. Unable to find coverage that would make the subject pass the general notability guideline. Haakon (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Would an admin please check if this qualifies for speedy deletion under G4? KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Could be renamed, could be merged but a deletion is not the case here. Tone 15:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Election results in 2009[edit]

Support the deletion. There is no article Election results in 2008, or in earlier years, as far as I can determine, so why this list? Whoever is in favor of this list should think about the effort required to create this list for earlier years. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that no previous article exists isn't a good ground to delete this article. Armbrust (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So what if there is no article called Election results in 2008? People make the effort to create year-by-year articles for other items, for example Category:1973 in sports. You gotta start somewhere. Mandsford (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what a brilliant list. Bearian (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless concatenation of events that are in no way related (other than temporally). Interested readers may click through the Electoral calendar 2009 to see individual results. Also, as pointed out by the nominator, this sets up needless work by someone who evidently didn't think through the implications of creating the list. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. I would advocate setting up similar lists for other years as well. --Soman (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a reasonable topic for a list as per above comments. I would also point out that although there is no list for 2008, there are already ones for Elections in 2007, Elections in 2006, Elections in 2005 and Elections in 2004, although under a slightly different name to this one (the names should be standardised one way or the other). Davewild (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Electoral calendar 2009, and decide somewhere (is there a relevant project?) what the naming convention should be for such articles. Maybe "National elections in yyyy"? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant wikiproject is the refounded Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. (Anyone welcome to join!!) Davewild (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good list, I see no good reason for deletion DRosin (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close . This belongs at RfD. Debate has been copied there. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan International Airport[edit]

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

An article for Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Airport already exists; there is no airport by the name of the article nominated for deletion (it was simply created by a user who has created other variants of the same Jasepl (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this is a redirect issue. From what to what, I'm not positive. Probably from this to Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Airport. --Oakshade (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its more than that.

There is already an article called "Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan Airport" - this is valid.

One user, in an attempt to make the airport looker more important (in his mind anyway) created two additional articles:

Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan International Airport
Patna Airport(International)

And then filled said pages with either the same exact content as in the valid article, or added random bits of unneeded (or incorrect) information.

Someone else then removed the content and added a redirect.

Basically, neither of the new articles should exist, because there's not even a need for a redirect. The airport is not an international one, so the user's adding that word in a new article's title was false.

Jasepl (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close . This belongs at RfD. Debate has been copied there. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patna Airport(International)[edit]

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

An article for Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Airport already exists; there is no airport by the name of the article nominated for deletion (it was simply created by a user who has created other variants of the same) Jasepl (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Airport. Salih (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to LinkedIn. Seems to be adequate consensus that the topic on its own is not sufficiently notable to justify a stand-alone article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Voldemort[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to LinkedIn as the project's developer. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just a stub, but could quickly become much more with a little research. Putting this up for deletion is completely irresponsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.106.220 (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove that the sofware is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: this software enjoys mild popularity at high scalability conferences, there are a couple of presentations / speeches / reports on it done by Voldemort spokesman Jay Kreps: [36] [37]. As this product is not of wide public interest, it would probably never accumulate enough public attention outside of these semi-academic / semi-commercial circles. --GreyCat (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Linkedin; verifiable, but not notable at the moment, unlike BigTable and Dynamo (storage system). Pcap ping 23:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examinations Officer[edit]

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

Fails on WP:NOTDICTIONARY Mattg82 (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator suggests fails on WP:NOT. Wikipedia is also not a guide or manual to the various career 'positions of responsibility' in UK schools. Polargeo (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — æk ^Talk 00:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sporebook[edit]

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

Couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to show product meets WP:GNG NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, based on a Google search. Not to detract from the potential of the product to become notable, but it doesn't meet WP:N now. The only pertinent hits I found were a mention by this article's author on his LinkedIn page, a few incorporation and intellectual property registration listings by Sporebook's owner, Paul Templeman, and a blurb Templeman placed ingenuously in an Amazon discussion thread where he tried to arouse interest in it but got no takers. Besides that, there are the usual nonsense pages, and a few pages dealing with some computer gaming system called Spore. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this product. Joe Chill (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. wikipedia is not a promotion for you product --16x9 (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any coverage in any reliable source. This is not notable. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Farrar[edit]

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

This article was prodded in January 2008, and the prod was removed after the article was improved. I think the prod was quite proper and the article should be deleted. A senior public servant should not be automatically notable because of their position or the ordinary things done in their job. Some might be, but only if they are the subject of independent coverage. There is no independent coverage of this guy apart from in publications that solely deal with the NHS. In my view, this guy is a dime-a-dozen senior, but not top-level, bureaucrat Mkativerata (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Found numerous independent – creditable – 3rd party references concerning the individual, as shown here [38] I’ll add more to the article over the next day or two. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've looked over those Google News hits. Not a single one of them is - as the GNG requires - about the subject; they all either include quotes by him or are omnibus articles about civil service appointments, himself included. He certainly fails WP:POLITICIAN. RGTraynor 16:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - However, he does meet the criteria under professionals in that he “…The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.” which the GHITS show. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CREATIVE does not apply to him: he is not a scientist, academic, economist, professor, author, editor, journalist, filmmaker, photographers, artist, architect, engineer or other creative professionals. He is a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats implement policy and often get in the news for doing so. But that doesn't make them notable. If the "important figure" and "widely cited by peers" test was to apply to bureaucrats, wikipedia would become a public service directory for medium to upper level mandarins. --Mkativerata (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I do not believe we differentiate between individuals, with regards to their position in life, when applying, as you stated “important figures and “widely cited by peers”. Either you are or you are not. If you meet the criteria, no matter what mantle we place on the individual, you meet the requirements. Labeling or pigeon-holing a person into this category or that, should not hold muster with regards to inclusion. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We do differentiate people: WP:CREATIVE only applies to creative professionals. WP:ATHLETE only applies to athletes. Bureaucrats fit into neither and should be judged according to WP:BIO and WP:GNG, neither of which are met by this guy because he's not the subject of any independent sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You mean you infer he's regarded as an important figure in his field; do you have any reliable sources saying so? He's certainly been repeatedly cited in the media, but do you have any reliable sources from his peers citing him? He still wouldn't pass the prof test even if it applied to him, which of course it does not. RGTraynor 00:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles on hundreds of minor pop stars and footballers who emerge into the limelight and soon disappear again, but someone who's actions and decisions over many years in senior positions, controlling budgets of millions of pounds, affect millions of peoples lives and has the ear of senior politicians are not considered worthy. The nature of the role of civil servants means they are supposed to shun personal limelight, however I believe there are enough citations to reliable sources to illustrate his notability and significance in line with many of the individuals in Category:British civil servants.— Rod ^talk 09:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added several citations to the article including three from independent news sources that mention details about the subject rather than quotes from him. Road Wizard (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable having served on several major UK public bodies. --Simple Bob (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination is a clear example of wikilawyering overcoming common sense. Just because we don't have a notability guideline for bureaucrats on the lines of WP:PORNSTAR it doesn't mean that we have to delete articles about obviously notable bureaucrats. This guy was in charge of primary care in the NHS, i.e. he ran the service that 99% of the population of England use when they get sick (for those outside the UK, private primary care is almost non-existent here). How on earth can that not be considered to confer notability? I've also fleshed out the article a bit to demonatrate that the subject has not followed a typical career path for a senior civil servant. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Rodriguez[edit]

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

fails WP:ENTERTAINER; very minor roles on a few programs. Exit, stage left. Ironholds (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm going to have to agree. Does not yet meet key terms in WP:ENTERTAINER like "Significant" or "large" or "prolific." Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weightist. She shouldn't be penalised for being small! :P. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If she was a full cast member of Days of our Lives, that would in my view get her across the line. But she's not. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Polargeo (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, WP:SNOW, yet another "word I made up that means anything you want it to mean." NawlinWiki (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tulargie[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. No indications that this word has found any widespread use. ((prod)) removed by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dictionary definition at best and most certainly a neologism if that so no need for inclusion. Polargeo (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Perrin[edit]

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

Not clear how this might meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO. All but one reference listed in bulleted section is written by Perrin himself. There is no indication that this person meets criteria 2-9 of WP:PROF. While his books have been cite by some according to Google Scholar, the impact does not appear to be nearly significant enough to meet 1 of WP:PROF. General fails WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. (hotly) contested prod by original creator who has reverted maintenance tags placed by multiple other editors. RadioFan (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perrin is mentioned in numerous Wikipedia articles as a qualified expert, he holds an academic position, published by various peer-reviewed journals, is a noted commentator on the Gospel of Thomas (see any scholarly work on Thomas), etc. No reason for this to be tagged for deletion other than overzealous editors who haven't done their homework. --Ari (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to share what a simple Wikipedia search would have brought up:

Ecclesiastes "Nicholas Perrin has suggested that the framing device of Ecclesiastes was used to point to the Messiah.[11]..."
Gospel of Thomas "Nicholas Perrin argues that Thomas is dependent on the Diatessaron, which was composed shortly after 172 by Tatian in Syria.[39]..."
Gnostic Gospels "Some scholars including Nicholas Perrin argue that Thomas is dependent on the Diatessaron, which was composed shortly after 172 by Tatian in Syria.[10]"
Q Document "# Nicholas Perrin has argued that the Gospel of Thomas was based on Tatian's Gospel and harmony with the Diatessaron instead of the Q document.[10]"

--Ari (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' While I appreciate the fervor you are defending this article with, I'm not seeing whats required for it to meet inclusion guidelines. As mentioned in the nomination, Perrin's work has been cited by others but the notability bar for academics is considerably higher. The title of "associate professor" doesn't help meet notability guidelines here. There is no indication that he been appointed to a named academic post has received any honors or awards for his work or is a member of any prestigious scholarly society, nor has he had any impact outside academia. The one area that might help him meet inclusion guidelines is his research. As you mention, he has written a number of books on the Gospel of Thomas. However the impact of this is not clear. These books have been cited by others in journals and papers but many of these citations are Perrin himself referring to his own books. This doesn't meet the "significant impact" and evidence that his work has been "broadly construed" that WP:PROF demands. --RadioFan (talk) 9:12 am, Today (UTC−5)

Comment I wasn't aware that your personal ignorance of him counted against his notability. Despite your claims, his works are known outside of academia (and he has written books at the request of popular press), as well as within academia. Similarly, he actually is a member of a number of significant scholarly societies such as SBL and IBR. Contra your other claims, his mentions in books and journals are not him mentioning himself. Check the repeatedly presented sources. It's okay if you made a mistake prematurely tagging an article. --Ari (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to above, there are also the scholarly secondary sources. A handful being:

April DeConick in Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and Its Growth (and other works).
Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov in Exploring the origins of the Bible: canon formation in historical, literary and theological perspective
Larry W. Hurtado in Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity
Craig L. Blomberg in Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey
As well as in International Review of Biblical Studies: Internationale Zeitschriftenschau Fur Bibelwissenschaft und Grenzgebiete Volume 50 of International Review of Biblical Studies; and many more.

--Ari (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article easily meets the requirements of the basic criteria of WP:Bio as well as WP:ACADEMIC for the above reasons. Evidently, there is no reason for deletion of this article as the proposed reasons are demonstrably false.--Ari (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a tad more regarding the claims against notability in the field of Thomasine studies, Perrin was selected to write the two parts on Thomasine studies in Currents in Biblical Research which discusses the direction in the field as well as consensus. (N. Perrin, "Recent Trends in Gospel of Thomas Research (1991-2006): Part I, The Historical Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels" in Currents in Biblical Research. 2007; 5: 183-206) --Ari (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re: lack of third party coverage, over 10 academic works engaging with his influential thesis (e.g. as followed by Craig A. Evans the claim that "lack of significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources" seems to demonstrate nothing but bad research on the respective editors part. --Ari (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete google scholar [39] has one book cited five times in one form, four in another. To find this I had to sort through pages and pages of citations for a different (and clearly WP:PROF passing) biologist Nicolas Perrin, and mathematician Nicolas Perrin (I note that Nicolas Perrin is a different individual, who also seems to fail WP:BIO). I don't see clear evidence of passing WP:PROF through demonstrable impact. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the various citations from academic books engaging with his influential thesis. Leading scholars have followed the thesis (e.g. Craig A. Evans above.) He is widely published, widely reviewed in both academic and lay circles, etc. I don't think writing him off on the basis of a generic search because his name is similar to others is meaningful, nor does it reflect the scholarly impact. Some of the discussions on him in prominent peer-reviewed academic works that don't come up in a search of Google Scholar:

Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov, Exploring the origins of the Bible: canon formation in historical, literary and theological perspective.'

April DeConick, Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and Its Growth. p.48

Larry W. Hurtado in Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity.

Craig L. Blomberg,Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. (2nd Edition)

Shedinger, Robert F. Review of Biblical Literature, 2003, Vol. 5, p509.

Morrice, Wm G.. Expository Times, Jun2003, Vol. 114 Issue 9, p310

Williams, P. J. European Journal of Theology, 2004, Vol. 13 Issue 2, p139-140

Joosten, Jan. Aramaic Studies; Jan2004, Vol. 2 Issue 1, p126-130.

Taylor, Nicholas H. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 2008 Booklist, Vol. 30 Issue 5, p120-121

Kenneth D. Litwak, review of Nicholas Perrin, Thomas, The Other Gospel, Review of Biblical Literature [40] (2008).

Robert F Shedinger, review of Nicholas Perrin, Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron, Review of Biblical Literature [41] (2003).

N. Perrin, "Recent Trends in Gospel of Thomas Research (1991-2006): Part I, The Historical Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels" in Currents in Biblical Research. 2007; 5: 183-206

--Ari (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Google Scholar, if you quote his name such as here, there are far more than implied by the earlier statement. i.e. ~90. --Ari (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That GS search turns up nothing new in terms of citations. He's published, but that doesn't make him notable. Documenting notable impact of his publications would, that's why I spoke about citations. I looked, and did not see the sort of documentable impact that I expect to demonstrate that a subject passes WP:PROF, and I see no evidence that he passes WP:BIO. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"See the ground breaking work of Nicholas Perrin, Thomas: The Other Gospel... as well as his Thomas and Tatian... (Theology as Conversation, Bruce L. McCormack, et al. p.23) --Ari (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author has made a clearly significant impact in the area of NT scholarship. Editors should investigate the subject for five minutes before nominating articles for deletion. — goethean ॐ 19:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ari89 as he is clearly notable. Arhus denizen (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC) note this is Arhus denizen's second edit at wikipedia, the user's first edit was also at AfD. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, associate professor, h-index of 4. Has one drum he is beating; this is what professors are supposed to do. But the general lack of interest in his work suggests that he is not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 01:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Employmentism[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Can not find much via google to suggest that this is a notable term used by social scientists. role^player 13:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources, no indication this is notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can barely find any references to this term on search engines. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 21:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctic gyres[edit]

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

This article is based on the subject of two different articles (Weddell Gyre and Ross Gyre). Separating it would increase the chances of being improved. The article's title (Antarctic Gyres) is not an actual term used to refer the two gyres. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and change to a disambiguation page. From a Google search, it looks like the term "Antarctic Gyre" has been used to refer to either of these, as well as the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. There's also mention of an Australian-Antarctic Gyre. Why not have this article simply list the three or four gyres to which the term might refer? Pburka (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Search engines will of course show results for "Antarctic gyres". But, it is not a "term" used anywhere. For example, searching "cold area of earth" may show "Antarctica" as one of the results, but it is not a term. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, but the first three results returned by Google are from Elsevier [42], Encarta [43] and The Biogeography of the oceans[44]. The other results are mostly academic sources, too. Pburka (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. But the results refers to the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (which circulates around Antarctica; not the subject of the current article). Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 04:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, a disambiguation or redirection page is clearly called for. If the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is also called the Antarctic Gyre, we ought to have a page with that name, since it's a likely search and link term. Once we create an Antarctic Gyre page, there should be no argument about redirecting Antarctic gyres to it. Pburka (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Antarctic gyre" and "Antarctic gyres" are just informal scientific ways of calling the Weddell Gyre and the Ross Gyre, (the only two gyres in the southern ocean). It sometimes also refers to the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, which is not scientific, nor formal, (as Weddel & Ross Gyres are gyres, and the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is a current)... Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a redirect page for schlong which is, I believe, neither a scientific nor formal name. Surely it wouldn't be too onerous to have pages for Antarctic Gyre and a list of Antarctic gyres. I've rewritten the page in the hopes that it survives this AfD discussion. Pburka (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i guess a dab page would do. :) But, shouldnt the page be forwarded to something like "Antarctic gyre (disambiguation)? Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an excellent name to me. Pburka (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shall i move the page and remove the deletion tag? :) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 04:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Delete !votes, so if you'd like to explicitly withdraw the nom, I'll mop up. You can go ahead and move the page, as well, if you like. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i withdraw the deletion nomination. I will change this page to a dab page as discussed. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete as a copyvio. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rose Tattoo (album)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Dweller (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references and hopelessly POV- "The Rose Tattoo is a journey of passion, finesse, intensity, and artistry, an album that will etch itself .." etc etc. --Brunk500 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If you check the discussion about Daniela Nardi, you'll see easily she is a notable artist. According to WP:NALBUMS, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia". So, it surely satisfies WP:MUSIC. Victor Silveira (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: However, I agree it must be rewritten.Victor Silveira (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just tagged the article for CSD (as a ((Db-g12))). If you removed everything that's directly copied from http://www.danielanardi.com/bio/, you'd have nothing left. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Nardi[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Some evidence of COI editing. Dweller (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Winner of the Canadian Smooth Jazz award for Best Female Vocalist in 2009[45], played on CBC [46], subject of multiple articles in major newspapers[47][48]. Not my style, but easily satisfies WP:MUSIC. Pburka (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pburka. Allmusic also has non-trivial coverage describing her vocal style. Gongshow ^Talk 19:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the sources above and some others I found: Jazz World Quest, More.ca, Billboard World Song Contest, Billboard.com, Riverting Riffs and Lula Lounge.ca. Surely, it satisfies WP:BAND#1 and #8. Victor Silveira (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article has been expanded and some of the references mentioned above have been incorporated, meets WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 16:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep and close per the diligent work performed after nomination. I figure its always better to look for the sources that might show an article's meeting of the WP:GNG and then improving it rather than forcing cleanup by bringing the article to AFD... But that's me. WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD are only guidelines... not policies. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added another WP:RS reference from Official Bali Jazz Festival 2005 Website. --Scieberking (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn . Legal concerns resolved. Notability established with sources over the past hours. Nomination withdrawn.Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC) (formatting corrected by KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Richard C. Sanders[edit]

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

Prod removed, author deems this notable.

This is an almost exact copy of [49] (U.S. Air Force), but since that is a U.S. government-website written by staff while on duty, I'm assuming I cannot tag it for speedy/copyvio. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added two different articles from Time Magazine and one from the New York Times. There appears to be more but because of the time frame it will be a little harder to find. Indication is that there is coverage of him in reliable sources that establishes notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that. My question about the text remains. Maybe I wasn't clear enough: Can we just copy-paste everything from the Air Force database into wikipedia? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I do understand your concerns with regards to copyright violation. However the site does give permission to republish “2. Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied”, as shown here [50]. Regarding the individual, yes, he is notable by our standards. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 16:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. That's the note I was looking for. I kept searching the site for a good half hour and never found it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above, and never mind just the Air Force site - by law, US federal government works (and, by extension, works done by US government employees within the scope of their employment, such as - for example - photos on duty by active service military personnel) cannot be copyrighted. It's a complex bit of business, and looking over the exceptions on WP:PD are worth editors' while, but yes, a straight cut-and-paste from the Air Force bio site should pass muster. That being said, the nom hasn't yet proffered any grounds for deletion. What might they be? RGTraynor 16:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought Tracker[edit]

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

This is alleged to be a solo album from Chad Kroeger (of Nickelback). It's unsourced, and I can find no evidence that it exists. I'm putting it here because this user has created pages for all the people who supposedly collaborated on it. These are people whose only claim for notability would be this album. So I'd like this thing deleted (or myself proven wrong) with a chance for discussion before all those other folks have to go too. Glenfarclas (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something odd is going on here. The Chad Kroeger article says a few songs for this album were recorded in late 2009. No source is given on when the album will be released or even what its true title is, or whether those songs were truly recorded. Not enough info exists to satisfy WP:FUTURE. Delete for now - article can be recreated when (if) the album appears in reality. I also share the suspicion that the article is serving as some sort of promotional gimmick. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I don't know if this is some kind of hoax. At the very least, it's a WP:CRYSTAL violation, as I can find zero reliable sources to verify this album title, a release date or track listing. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 16:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS. No reliable third-party coverage found. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have prodded two of the three individuals the nom mentioned whose only claim to notability is association with this album (Kevin Balducci and Robby Drake). I redirected the third, Josh Hartzler, to his spouse Amy Lee. If bundling them with this AfD nomination is a better approach I would not oppose. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless done very carefully, I find that bundeling AfD's tend to explode in ones face. Prodding would be my choice too, with the note that if sources would appear, they may also give notability to the contributers. Further, as I originaly PRODed this article too, Delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication this exists, and the fact that the track list suggests at least two already-successful songs from other artists and on other albums would be included makes it look even more suspect. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something weird is going on with this. I googled "Thought Tracker," and the only thing that came up that had the slightest connection to music was this article. No third party sources, and it seems like there should be some information from whatever label it was produced on, assuming it was even produced. There is a mention on Chad Kroeger's page, still with no citation. (Assuming this is deleted, someone should make sure that's gone too.) No website on Chad Kroeger mentioned this either. Also, it contains a reference to Brandon Kroeger replacing Daniel Adair as Nickelback's drummer. Again, no coverage of this, and it would seem a rather major event to be ignored even by the bands own website, no? I think someone's pulling a fast one an all of us. C628 (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: thanks for finding that on Chad Kroeger's page, I've removed it as unsourced. --Glenfarclas (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warehouse Republic[edit]

My name is Andrei Nedelea, the manager of Warehouse Republic, and I would like this page and anything else referencing the band removed. This has no relation to Warehouse Republic and a fair amount of what is written here is both libellous and defamatory towards the band. Both the band and myself have no connection to anything that has been written and dont think that having this page is constructive towards anything resembling public interest and will also submit an offical request to have it removed.

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

This article about a band seems to assert enough to get past speedy. But it is totally unsourced and so transparently written to play up their image I knew I'd have to look into it. I cannot find the "multiple [independent] non-trivial published works," nor anything else about this group, that would satisfy WP:BAND. And if anyone's talking about Charlie Flynn and Frances Bean Cobain, they're not doing it on teh newfangled internets. Glenfarclas (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I'm willing to change this if anyone can point me to supporting reliable source coverage. I did look around for such coverage when adding the issue tags as part of new page patrol, and found none (and only (False positive hits in GNews)) though the article itself appears to assert that such coverage exists. Inclined to regard this assertion as not credible, since e.g. the NME website has no mention of the band despite their purported "Beatles with beats" quote. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NME doesn't seem to know they exist nor does anyone else, and I can't find a Panda Records that would meet our guidelines for notability either, so there's nothing here that really comes up to WP:BAND. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that this article should be deleted. Whilst I too haven't heard about the Frances Bean/Charlie Flynn thing I have heard of the band. They have supported some big names and also have a record coming out next year. I heard them on a late night Radio 1 show and think that they should have an article on here. Instead of deleting the entire article why not just delete the Cobain/Flynn thing instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.12.211 (talk)

Reply: Good to know that you've never "heard about the Frances Bean/Charlie Flynn thing," but that makes it especially odd that you originated it on Frances Bean Cobain's page six weeks ago (see here), don't you think? --Glenfarclas (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly as I use a public library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.12.211 (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. While whoever added the comment agreeing to deletion was not logged in when that comment was added, it was definitely hackercasta who blanked the page, which counts as an agreeing to the deletion as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABC GNU/Linux[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ABC GNU/Linux

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

Unreferenced, one of countless Ubuntu-based distros out there with no indication of notability, WP:COI, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given. Article is also a partial copyright violation of [51]. Haakon (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello. Excuse my english. This systems was shown in an IEEE congress and I think that IEEE is very important asociation. The article has a new references. The youtube link is mine and has a copyright problems? If you want I can put this article traslated

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_GNU/Linux If you want delete the english version now . hackercasta (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please delete my article now.

hackercasta (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chantra[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If an article has no sources, tag it as needing them, that's not a reason for a delete. If none can be found, then it can be tagged. Jumping straight to a delete request gives no-one a reasonable chance to respond, as not everyone lives on Wikipedia. The collection is also Thai, so deleting would be an example of cultural bias, as the sources are in Thai, and not easily traceable in English (and the translation has numerous other meanings in English). [52] perhaps? Tag as needing sources, and revisit later. Greenman (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been around since early 2006 so if anyone wanted to improve it, it would have been improved without AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:BURDEN to verify the article occur with the first edit to the article. The author should have included sources with the first edit and had them ready before beginning to write about the subject.. Miami33139 (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No third party reliable sources to establish notability. 16x9 (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 11:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited, and it looks like this disc is simply a compilation that distributes software that could all be had from other sources, and as such seems trivial. This is like saying that since Jingle Bells is a notable song, if I make a holiday mix disc that contains Jingle Bells, my mix disc is an encyclopedia subject too. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beyond the comments above, I strongly object to the charge that deleting an unsourced article involves cultural bias, just because the subject pertains to another country. WP:V is an absolute: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Period. There is nothing in WP:V giving a free pass to article topics involving foreign countries. Ravenswing 16:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A fairly deep search resulted in finding one article in a relatively small Thai newspaper relating to this software. That's not enough to show notability. The inclusion of notable programs on the CD also does not establish notability, as mentioned previously. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. close one but policy is clear that multiple is more then one. Please feel free to prod me for an undeletion as and when another source becomes available Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Valley Girl Show[edit]

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

Non-notable webcasted show. Limited GNEWS and GHits mostly blogs, PR, and entries lacking substance. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Their isn't any source I could find otherwise than these, and it is a real webs show, as I sourced the website it airs on, and that's where I got the crew from too. Also, it debuted on YouTube, so I would think sourcing YouTube in this case its an exception. Also, what do you mean that the entries are lacking substance, so I could fix it? ATC^{. Talk} 18:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I found a reliable source: http://www.redorbit.com/news/entertainment/1749846/talk_show_with_high_profile_silicon_valley_guests_elon_musk/index.html. I'll add it to the article later today, as I will be busy. ATC^{. Talk} 18:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this and will add it later too: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/01/12/tidbits1.html. ATC^{. Talk} 18:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Redorbit is a press release and as such does not meet the criteria for reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Ttonyb1: Since the San Francisco Business Times source is reliable, could the article remain? Just as a stub, and will continue looking for other reliable sources, which are extremely hard to find. For now, I'll add it as an external link and when I have more time, I'll add it as a source and erase it as an external link. ATC^{. Talk} 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The requirements are the site be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works." Perhaps it is just a little too early in the lifecycle of the show for inclusion in Wikipedia. ttonyb (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her guests are high profile people from the investment and venture capital community. The tone might be light hearted but the substance is there.--Modelmotion (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – And how does this meet the requirements of WP:WEB? ttonyb (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment This is exactly the attitude that is causing Wikipedia editors to leave in droves. It has even been raised in the national media recently. I take the position that common sense is still a valuable commodity. I made a common sense arguement here. Please respect it as such. Watch the show. Study the episodes carefully. Do your due diligence and then make your own decisions. --Modelmotion (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Oh, please. How do you equate asking a valid question with presenting a negative attitude? Common sense is a valued commodity and it it what drives setting minimum standards for articles. Those standards help insure the quality and usefulness of Wikipedia. Although watching the show is not a prerequisite for establishing the notability of the article, how do you know I have not. I again ask how does this article meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia? ttonyb (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One source isn't enough. Joe Chill (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll find more, but maybe the web show hasn't met enough media releases yet (because the show is so new), and maybe it should be deleted. Let me find those other sources, they're not easy to find. Also, I don't like that this is become a dispute—I only like constructive criticism... :) Happy holidays! ATC^{. Talk} 04:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 11:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it should scrape by.--Milowent (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Why? Making a general statement is not really helpful to the reviewing admin. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coverage in the san francisco business times, plus newteevee and tubefilter (the two primary sites that cover webseries), and short coverage in wired.com article, are enough for a keep.--Milowent (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like other editors, I'm seeing only one reliable source, and I'm concerned that the Keep proponents define "constructive criticism" as meaning "keep your grubby deletionist mitts off." We can only keep articles on valid policy grounds, and asking what elements of WP:WEB - the notability guideline explicitly governing web content such as webcasts - this site fulfills not only is not a meanspirited question, it's a fundamental question that it's our duty to ask, and the responsibility of any editor advocating keeping this article to answer to a closing admin's satisfaction. RGTraynor 16:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From past experience, I assure you that modelmotion's !vote is almost assuredly of the "keep your grubby deletionist mitts off" variety and a holistic "does it harm the project to have this article?" approach. I !voted "scrape by" because I realize its not a slam dunk keep, but the sources satisfy me that it should be kept. Many webseries get absolutely no press coverage, and would not pass muster. Only some get as much coverage as this one has, and some get less (The Suburbs (web series)) and have been kept, so that's my view of the current consensus.--Milowent (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just so you're all aware, I created and edited the article completely. ATC^{. Talk} 01:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on what Milowent said about that other article about The Suburbs (web series), I don't think there is any reason to delete this article, as it has a lot more sources then the other article. ATC^{. Talk} 01:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's one undeniably reputable source, but I'd want to see more before I'd say this meets WP:WEB. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Annabel Caroline Grant Duff[edit]

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

I nominated this for speedy deletion last night under A7. This was declined, so it's having to come here. If she was a poet or writer, she would have something to find - but I can't find anything. I'm also unable to find anything else for her. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references found on google (and i tried, believe me), name appears in M. E. Grant Duff article, as his daughter, with no notability given there. this is probably enough for WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strike through added as Mercurywoodrose has changed !vote - see lower down. Peridon (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, forgot to do this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: If this is deleted, also delete the redirect Grant Duff, Claire Annabel Caroline. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirects are deleted as a matter of course in cases like this after the AfD closes. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined the speedy because she was asserted to be an author. She is a real person (Burke's Peerage, etc), but apparently there are no published works, in either WorldCat or the British Library, nor any other significant reference. . Quite a few of the other Grant Duffs are notable, some even as poets, but not her. I think prod would have done for this just as well as AfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I@m sorry I should have been clearer when i first placed her : She was quite important in her time and wrote " A victorian childhood", a book that was a bestseller for its time - she also wrote for the London Mercury and was an ardent feminist and friends with most of the most influential women of her time. she was also painted by John Singer Sargent and is mentioned as such ij most comprehensive bokks on him , see Mrs Jackson.... she was also, an ardent Nazi supporter and placed her house at the disposition of Mr Oswald Mosley for the headquarters of the British Nationalist Party. I will write more on her but have had little time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pg de Loriol (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You usually get about a week on an AfD - if you've got references, put them in. By the way, Mosley was a baronet (SIR) and ran the (now long defunct) British Union of Fascists. The BNP was a splinter in 1982 from the National Front. Mosley and Duff Grant were both dead by then. Peridon (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know he was a baronet and head of the BUF - He and GrantDuff were related to each other. I'll try to make this into a larger article by this evening - my previous comment was rushed last night hence the lapses of fact! I am not normally prone to lapses of fact.......... Pg de Loriol (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Pg de Loriol[reply]

Reconsidered as Keep. i did some more creative reference checking. she is apparently notable for the book cited above, but written under a different name.ive added the references i found (not happy with how i did it, and i could see a delete anyway if this is all that can be found). i would suggest a renaming of the article to her pen name, with any other name details in the body of the article. Pg de Lorio, its easy to avoid this process. just write an article in your userspace, and when its properly sourced, add it to WP. if you dont have time to write an article with sources, you surely dont have time to write an unsourced, poorlywritten stub that doesnt indicate notability. if you want to add more of her doings, just source them THEN add them.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see the book listed in Worldcat [53], with 32 holding libraries. . However, I do not see that it was a best seller or that it was in any way notable. But does anyone have the text of the TLS review readily available? DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable author and feminist. For example, see The Cambridge companion to the Victorian novel Colonel Warden (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 11:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark as stub for future expansion. Peridon (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simion Ghimpu[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. 3 hits in gnews. LibStar (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Those Google News hits appear to be passing mentions in coverage of the subject's much more notable brother. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 11:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas McAnulty[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. third party coverage verifies his appearance in 1 film but does not really say anything more than that and he is usually mentioned with a number of actors. [54]. LibStar (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nicholas McAnulty plays a major role in the movie throughout from A to Z. Sure, at age of 6, obviously, he cannot have had a series of roles to prove notability, but he landed himself a truly major role, amd based on this particular performance, it makes him quite notable. He appears on the official movie poster for example. In a majority of the reviews and pictures included from the movie, he appears as a major character alongside father and older brother. For example "San Francisco Journal" [55]. Or the Hollywood Interview [56]. Even in red carpet ceremonies, he is prominently featured. For example: [57], [58] werldwayd (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT clearly states multiple roles. also just because he is aged 6 does not mean we relax the criteria for him. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice toward recreation. If WP:ENT is not met, WP:GNG becomes the determinant. That he is written of in numerous reliable sources is to be considered toward his possible meeting of WP:BLP. However, since that coverage is for that one role, this seems to be WP:BLP1E. Let him get another role and receive coverage for that as well, and he may then better meet WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Struck my opinion above. Per Mosman Daily, Back Stage, IGN, Hollywood Reporter, ABC.net, Sun Times, and the supporting articles found in Google archives, the subject appears to meet the WP:GNG. Yes, the article needs expansion, cleanup, and proper sourcing... but these are to be accomplished through normal editing... not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 11:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once again, MichaelQSchmidt has found sources proving notability. Did you know he is an actor himself in real life as well? Dream Focus 01:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any further discussion about merging the related articles can be Proposed and discussed on the article talk page. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Europe Music Award for Best Push Act[edit]

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

Award within an award show, not notable Cynof Gavuf 12:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at [Category:MTV Europe Music Awards] There seems to be a separate article for each award. I think they should all be merged.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all or Keep: Per Mattg82. Joe Chill (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all Category:MTV Europe Music Awards - However, Award within an award show might actually be notable of itself eg all the Academy Awards have a seperate article. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 11:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP-PENDING: Am contacting personal friend, Sr. VP of MTV for additional info on MTV Europe. RAYOLIVERESQ RAYOLIVERESQ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Gutierrez[edit]

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

Not notable enough for a standalone article. This individual is notable only for his involvement in the Elian Gonzalez incident (fails notability guidelines at WP:BLP1E). Additionally, other sources claim that this individual is planning a campaign for a congressional seat (fails notability guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN). If there is any relevant, notable information about this individual, it should be merged into Elian Gonzalez affair.

Additionally, this article was recently speedily deleted and subsequently restored, because the speedy delete was procedurally incorrect. SnottyWong talk 11:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a political consultant and business leader, the subject of this article has achieved plenty of coverage over the last 30 years. The news sources as old as 1983 and book sources show notability far beyond the Gonzalez affair. It should be noted that the person planning on running for Congress is a different individual - Armando Gutierrez, Jr. (b. September 11, 1981) - this person's son. The son may or may not be notable for the reasons stated by the proposer, but this is an article about the father. I have tagged for rescue, and will work on sourcing, but there are a lot of paywalls in the news search. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The google news link you provided above proves that this individual is notable only in a local context, apart from his involvement in the Elian Gonzalez affair. There is a baseline of a few articles a year which mention his name (all local articles in the context of Miami) from 1982 to 2000. Then, there is a huge spike in 2000-2001. Then, from 2002 on the articles are back down to their baseline of a few a year, and all are about Miami-related events. This person is only locally notable, with the exception of one event (WP:BLP1E). Per WP:BLP1E: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." SnottyWong talk 15:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Additionally, per your own admission (below), there are multiple people named Armando Gutierrez that have showed up in the news at one point or another. Therefore, we cannot simply attribute all of the google books and google news hits to this particular Armando Gutierrez. For instance, I randomly chose news articles from 2006-2007, and none of the first 10 articles that came up were about this Armando Gutierrez. SnottyWong talk 15:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Still non-notable. But he's using he's spotlight in the Elian case for self-promotion, and may become well-known later. But for know, his article is just serving his self-promotion. --Damiens.rf 22:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What self-promotion? I have found four different people of this name, all of whom have some level of notability. Are you confusing this subject (the highly notable Miami-Dade political consultant) with his son (who is running for Congress in Orlando)? I agree that the son may become notable either through the congressional race, or he will if he wins. I don't see how the father's article is serving as promotion for the son. I actually hadn't heard of any of them before the DRV, but the news coverage seems to indicate that the father is easily notable on his own. I will probably also start another article on the academic who served as Jesse Jackson's spokesman and accompanied him to meet Castro, becuase that is another notable person by the same name. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting the information that he is a "highly notable political consultant"? The WP article doesn't even mention that he is a political consultant. It just says "he got involved in politics." Was he ever a political consultant for a high-profile political candidate which would clearly establish his notability (like a governor, senator, congressman, president)? Even if you're an elected official, you're not notable enough for a WP article unless you're a mayor or better (WP:POLITICIAN). So, how notable must one of a politician's advisors or a member of a candidate's campaign team be to deserve an article? I still have yet to see his involvement in any event (apart from Elian Gonzalez) that is clearly notable. SnottyWong talk 15:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added information about an event earlier this year regarding a news story and retraction that sources his being called just that. I also noted that in just about every news story he is attached as a fundraiser, cosultant, or spokesman for a candidate. I will source every campaign he has worked on that is noted in those news articles, and the sum-total of this easily passes the WP:GNG. I have also not yet written into the article the information from this page one day-in-the-life profile that was done on him in 1987 - long before the Gonzalez events. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: the news story you just added to the article describes how a newspaper ran an article about a completely different Armando Gutierrez, and mistakenly attributed it to this Armando Gutierrez. That says nothing about the notability of this Armando Gutierrez. Please do as you suggested above and add the sources for every campaign he has worked on, as that would certainly go a lot further towards establishing notability than mistaken-identity newspaper retractions. (This discussion also continues on Talk:Armando Gutierrez#Indictment Controversy.)

Furthermore, your day-in-the-life article (from a local Tampa Bay newspaper) doesn't tell us much about why Gutierrez is notable. I read the whole thing and here's what I learned: he likes strong coffee, he drives a Mercedes, he speaks Spanish, he failed to help a real estate magnate legalize gambling in Florida, and he owns hotels in Miami Beach. SnottyWong talk 19:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This individual is now a candidate for congress in Florida's eighth district. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdsali (talk • contribs) 01:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

False. This candidate's son is now a candidate for congress in Florida (Armando Gutierrez Jr.). Also note that even if this were true, candidates in an election are not automatically notable unless they win. SnottyWong talk 13:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 11:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Jim has shown, this individual is notable beyond the Elian Gonzalez affair, so WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. He appears to meet WP:BIO, at least from my perspective. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP1E does not apply to someone with continued coverage in news sources for over 25 years. Article provides some terrific sources as ELs that should be converted to citations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 16:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Side of Peace (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable documentary. The film was never released to theaters, and was screened at a dozen or so film festivals (according to the film's website). This film is not even on IMDb's radar. Fails notability guidelines at WP:NFILMS. SnottyWong talk 12:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Schmidt is a genius. Joe Chill (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 11:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and send to WP:Cleanup for expansion and sourcing. With respects to the nominator, it seems that apart from festivals [59][60], the film has indeed been written about... and has had both theatrical and television release beginning in 2005 [61][62] [63]. It was part of the 3rd National Conference of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom [64], is now part of curriculum at some universities [65][66][67], is making impact in conferences dealing with human rights [68], and heck... it even won some awards [69]. Documentary films rarely get the press hype of media blockbusters, but guideline allows that they be may judged in context for what they are. Surmountable issues are no reason for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of media coverage. Dream Focus 01:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snow Keep. Per Schmidt.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gynoid[edit]

This is a case of over-categorisation, non-notability, or both. As far as I can tell, the following is true about the word "gynoid." 1. No prominent science fiction author, living or dead, has ever used the word "gynoid" in their fiction. 2. It has never been used in any well-known science fiction TV show or film. 3. It has never been used by anyone who actually builds robots (such as NASA engineers, for example), and they probably wouldn't know what you were talking about if you used the word in a sentence when talking to them. 4. In particular, it has never been used by anyone who builds female androids, which this article claims is called a "gynoid." Beside that, the entire article reads somewhat like a college literature essay. I don't say that as a criticism, it's quite good as far as that goes, but it's not an encyclopedia article. All the references are to obscure academic papers, mostly on literary theory.Callivert (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just heard 'gynoid' on a French TV show, "Un Monde de Bulles" -- admittedly in French, but they had a piece on a gallery show in Paris on female robots and "gynoid" was used as a reference to Japanese usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.1.129.240 (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR, WP:SYN, and having a title that is a nonnotable neologism. the only use i am aware of is in the Hajime Sorayama book of this name. any sourced content can be added to robot or android. well, here is another ref, [70], showing word origin. nice, and gwyneth jones is somewhat notable (good writer), but not particularly notable. i can understand the structure of the word, as android uses a masculine prefix. perhaps a brief mention of this alternate term there is enough. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and rename There are multiple notable sources including BBC and popular science that have made direct references to the gynoid fad and unambiguously distinguishes the notability of female android and their signficance to pop culture. This article passes WP:NOTE and its deleting seems to be borderline WP:OSTRICH. However Gynoid does not seem to be the primary name for this subject. Possible rename to female android. Valoem ^talk 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About those direct references. None of the BBC or Popular Science references on the article use the word "gynoid", instead they talk about female androids or female robots as the subject matter. So I could live with a rename. However, a rename doesn't solve the other problems: the article reads like a literary theory essay, which fails the suitability criterion.

Keep. The citation for Gwyneth Jones, who coined the term is provided. Particualrly, it is exploited in Hajime Sorayama's artwork, there is also a medical usage. Brand[t] 14:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot that seems very wrong with the article. "The term gynoid was created by Gwyneth Jones in her 1985 novel" - that essential fact should be in the very first sentence, instead it is buried inside the article. I fear it is buried there because the article has a lot of OR. The article seems to be trying to retrospectively apply the term "gynode" to objects, stories, circumstances, concepts, ect., that were around long before the term was coined. That does not make the article invalid if a large number of legitimate sources have been attempting that retrospective applying. However, from the article, it is very hard to tell what legitimate sources are doing the retrospective applying, and how much of the retrospective applying is actually being done by Wikipedia editors. The number of, and the status of, the sources are the key to deciding whether there is a legitimate article here to keep. If the real number of sources are very small then the term would be non-notable. As has been pointed out, some references cited in the article do not actually use the word "gynoid", instead they talk about female androids or female robots. And the article does read like an essay. Meowy 17:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that strictly speaking, the word android means "man-like", not "human-like" and is overused. Gynoid balances that, being applicable to feminine machines. Brand[t] 19:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the origins of the word might make it appear that way, but "android" has a pretty clear meaning today. In widespread useage it means a human-like robot of either gender. 122.148.134.81 (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

brandmeister, are you saying the article deserves to stay because it provides the proper gender balance for discussing articificial humans? if you can't show references that mention this idea, this is pure OR, which is the whole problem with this article. As a PC person in general, might agree with you, but its not our call to try to shape the language.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just an observation. The article deserves to stay because the word could be also found in related publications. But any action other than deletion nomination is plausible. Brand[t] 21:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If necessary rename to Fembot as that is the more commonly used term, but there is certainly enough verifiable info here for an article. Maybe it needs to be improved, but the concept is sound, there are plenty of references out there. Treating conceptually female robots differently from male robots is a valid concept. The sex roles introduce enough new material for a separate article. Riverpa (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fembot is a humorous term. Android is quite obviously the common term for artificial human. right or wrong, we need to document actual usage. Oh, and by the way, until we can provide androids with reproductive functionality, any that we finally create will be as asexual as a toaster. simulated sexual characteristics dont make an object female or male.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. While "female android" is more common and technically correct ("man", while usually refering to a male, can also be used as a gender neutral term for human), "gynoid" is the more accurate term, and I don't believe a page move is needed. As for notability, the term has been used by Gwyneth Jones and Richard Calder. While neither author is exeptionally prominent, both are at least notable. For what it's worth (i.e. nothing) I use the term "Gynoid" fairly often in robotics related discussions or anytime Japan comes up. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 22:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Fembot. Gynoid has not gained the same popular recognition as the term Fembot. Gobonobo ^T ^C 10:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok, i can see a rationale for having an article on this term, but i really must insist that if a source is talking about female robots, female androids, fembots, etc, and doesnt explicitly use the term gynoid, its not a valid source for THIS article. this article should be only about the use of this term, unless and until this term is actually accepted by a wide range of sources as a valid term for referring to any and all feminine robot/androids. if we want an article pulling together all forms of female articifial humans, the title could be some variant of "artificial women", or "female robots". and rememember, robots DO exist, dolls DO, and androids DONT. im worried that this article exists because a lot of us fanboys are familiar with the term, which i admit is a really cool one. (im a fan of sorayama)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author request here [71] Pedro : Chat 00:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Onuzulike[edit]

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

Disputed prod which I had previously seconded having been unable to find any WP:RS to support claims of notability. The text for the original prod was This BLP is of a non-notable person. This person has released 1 album on his own label (as can be seen on his near-empty allmusic.com entry). releasing an album on a non-notable label which is owned by the artist does not qualify for notability, as the label must be independent from the artist WP:NOTE. Furthermore, this person has released 2 books, all self-published work [72] - [73]. Nancy ^talk 10:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An entirely valid prod, in my view. I can't find anything on this guy other than self-produced sources - certainly no independent coverage per WP:BIO. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Mkativerata, I just goggled Lurrenz and there were about 41 900 results that include articles about him, interviews with notable Nigerian newspapers, and many pages dedicated to his works. To say that all you could find was an almost empty page at allmusic.com shows that you have some personal issues with this page. I don't know who you are but you sound very insulting and I hope you succeed in your chose field.'

I hope you have more things that wikipedia going on in your life.

Thanks and have a very good life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.20.221.95 (talk • contribs) — 62.20.221.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Comment. If you could show me any of these independent sources that are about Lurrenz, I'd be happy to reconsider my vote on his nomination. I can't find them. My comment on the subject's self-promotion was overboard and I have reverted it. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Many links relating to his works were posted on the page initially but that wasn't enough. Links to his interviews with The Sun and The Guardian newspapers were posted because his works were discussed there but apparently it wasn't enough. Links to different notable Nigerian entertainment writers that mentioned his works were also included but that wasn't enough. So please explain exactly to me what you mean by independent sources. If you want me to find those links again and post them here I'll gladly google him again and get the links for you. And please kindly explain to me what qualified this page for wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abimbola_Adelakun. Oh I forgot to ask, didn't you come across children africa where he help many kids in Africa solely from the sales of his works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapulu (talk • contribs) 17:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Rapula. There were two reasons that the links you posted were removed:

They were not reliable sources being either self-published or blogs.
They were link spam being direct links to transactional pages for the purchase of Onuzulike's work.

There may well be pages of google hits for Onuzulike but if they are not reliable sources then they count for nothing. I strongly suggest you click through on the two links above and start to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You should also read the notability guidelines for biographies as well. Best, Nancy ^talk 05:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Rapulu[edit]

Apart from the links that linked to his books at tesco and tower books, I also added these links:

Interview with The Daily Sun Newspapers I posted this link since his works were discussed there. Note that a respectable media house like The Sun cannot, in any circumstances, grant a full-page interview to a non notable person.

Interview with The Guardian NewspapersYou can easily verify the fact that The Guardian is one of the most respectable newspapers in Africa. And like any top News media in any country, they cannot grant full-page interview to a non notable person.

Rasik Radio and Magazine, Germany This is in German but it's clear that the article is about his works.

Interview with Silverbird TV I can't find the whole interview but this is part of it. Again it is easily verifiable that Silverbird TV is one of the biggest and most respected TV stations on West Africa. So they don't grant interviews which is played on their national evening news to a non notable person.

Lurrenz drops new single, embraces acting andLurrenz returns, set for collabos These are where some of his works are mentioned by a multiple award winning Nigerian journalist and an entertainment reporter.

The Vanguard News, The Sun Newspapers and Nigeria Movie Net I added the following links as fun though, but they still add to the debate. They're not about his works but at least for all these respectable media houses to be calling him up whenever they want opinions from Nigerian celebrities show that he is very recognized by his country's media houses as an accomplished Celebrity.

Children Africa After working with Mother Theresa, he started Children Africa and have been changing the lives of many kids and families with his own hard earned money. For this alone, he is very respected.

Final Notes: Africa is not like the west, in terms of modern technology, so not everything a notable African does that is online, unless the person has successfully crossed the international line like Wole Soyinka and Chinua Achebe.

I also saw somewhere that his books were self published and his music self released. Let me talk about this:

His music first[edit]

First, Lurrenzinc is a well known entertainment company here in Nigeria and his books and music are released under it. It's like P. Diddy releasing his music under Bad Boy entertainment which he clearly owned. Not everybody is born poor, there are some people that can afford to start up a company to handle their interests. Dr. Alban did it in Sweden where his albums were released under Dr. Records. It's also important to note that the subjects last album "Still Single and Rich" were the work of two record labels; Ulzee Music and Lurrenzinc Music. You can verify this by googling Ulzee music or you can contact any Nigerian media house about how respectable Ulzee music is in Africa. Any where you see the subject contracting an online music promoter, it's solely for the international market. There are great Nigerian musicians with little or no online presence because the country is not yet too advanced in internet technology. So since most of the music stores are not online, most Nigerian musicians are forced to use online music promoters like CD baby, etc., to project their music to the international world.

And then his books[edit]

His books are first published in Nigeria and they can be found in most bookshops. Using the online self publishers is only for the international market since most Nigerian bookshops are not online.

To Nancy I have read the notability guidelines for biographies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapulu (talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another link posted by Rapulu

I was just reading Nigerian newspapers when I saw this link. The Punch is voted - I think, for the past four consecutive years - as the most circulated newspaper in Nigeria

The Punch Newspapers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapulu (talk • contribs) 15:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources presented above show clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil. I'm curious: have you actually gone through all 11 links provided by Rapulu and read through the content of the 11 links to come to this conclusion? Amsaim (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the first three of Rapulu's links, which was enough for me to come to that conclusion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the first 3 links of Rapulu, one is a blogspot, and therefore not a reliable source, the other one is a link to an internet radio station, and is therefore also not relevant and is not a reliable source. The link to the Daily Sun website contains an interview with the title "What Mother Theresa told me" from May 15 2009. This interview has some questionable content. It is obvious that the Daily Sun did not responsibly perform the editorial task of fact-checking and accuracy, and apparently accepted unchecked material. Here are 2 examples to prove this.

1) In the 3rd section of the interview, the following is written: ...Lurrenz who has worked with the late Mother Theresa in India shortly before her death and runs an online programme called, MySpace page spoke to Daily Sun...

What is an online programme called, MySpace page? What's that? Are the editors of the Daily Sun trying to say here that Lurrenz is actually running MySpace? Using common sense, this alone should make it clear that the editors of the Daily Sun clearly didn't use fact-checking and accuracy in their article. According to Wikipedia's rule of Reliable Sources, articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

2) In the interview, Lurrenz tells of a "prophecy" which Mother Theresa supposedly made about him, saying that ... Mother Theresa, while taking our morning tea, told me... if I continue to fight for my people, I would one day be honoured with the Nobel Prize. When you check the copy of the Lawrence Onuzulike articles which administrator Nancy deleted twice due to copyright violations, you will see that this information about the Nobel price, was written at the very top of the article in bold letters. This makes it very clear, according to WP:DUCK that the intention for the BLP article is merely self-promotion, using the name of an internationally well-known person such as Mother Theresa to gain attention. The rest of the Lawrence Onuzulike article was written in a deep promotional tone, filled with peacock terms. This unverified information about an alleged prophecy of Mother Theresa is an exceptional claim, and for such exceptional claims Wikipedia has a special guidline: Wikipedia Rules of Verifiability states that Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included..

Thus, since the Daily Sun interview contains unchecked, unedited and inaccurate information, and since the interview contains an unverified exceptional claim, this Daily Sun interview cannot serve as a reliable source. Amsaim (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the URL for an article contains the characters "blog" doesn't in itself make a source unreliable. The article was published by The Guardian, is a well-respected newspaper, and it just happens that the only copy available online is at blogspot.com. There is also nothing wrong with using a web site operated by an Internet radio station as a source - the link that you provided discusses the notability of Internet radio stations, not their reliablity as sources. This one clearly has an editorial process independent of the subjects of its content. The first three paragraphs of the Daily Sun article are editorial content, rather the the subject's words, so can be considered to be an independent reliable source for the purposes of notability. I'm not claiming that the subject's own words in the following interview should be taken into account. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link leads to a blogspot. The URL theguardianlifemagazine.blogspot.com is a blogspot, with the main domain name blogspot.com. There's nothing to debate or argue about this. Wikipedia's Rule of Verifiability states that Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable. A blogspot is being used in order to establish notability, and therefore this blogspot link is not a third-party, reliable and verifiable source to establish notability.

Concerning the Internet Radio Station, this link was provided by the article creator in order to establish notability. I have to point out that the german language that is being used on that link contains errors (grammar & spelling). There is no proof about any editorial tasks like fact-checking & accuracy that are being carried out by the station. We have no proof if the station has any editorial processes independent of the subjects of its content. It doesn't require much space or heavy hardware in order to run an internet radio station. Thus, the nature of internet radio stations usually is that editorial tasks are not being carried out, since all that is required to run the station is a little space on top of a table. Trying to establish notability for english wikipedia via a link to a non-notable internet radio station, with a page written in german language, is questionable.

Lastly, the Daily Sun interview. I have asked the question before, and would like you to please reply: when you write that The first three paragraphs of the Daily Sun article are editorial content, rather the the subject's words, so can be considered to be an independent reliable source for the purposes of notability, could you then please explain what is meant with the content of the third paragraph of the said article? Here's what's written in that third paragraph:

Lurrenz who has worked with the late Mother Theresa in India shortly before her death and runs an online programme called, MySpace page spoke to Daily Sun about the ban of his music video, his relationship with women, his passion for writing, his new album among other issues.

What is an online programme called, MySpace page? Surely, if there were any editorial tasks (like fact-checking, proof-reading, etc.) being performed on the said article, then something like that would not appear in the third paragraph. Or are you implying that fact-checking was carried out on that article, in which case I would like to know what an online programme called, MySpace page is? The fact is what we can read in that article: no editorial task was being carried out, and so this source is a questionable source and cannot be used to establish notability.

If the subject of the BLP is notable for english wikipedia, then there must be reliable sources available, in the english language, free from questionable content. There must be reliable and verifiable sources available that will clearly establish notability without any debates. If the only sources that are being presented are either questionable or non-reliable, then notability is not established.Amsaim (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result of cross-checking the provided Links[edit]

Delete

This article should be deleted. The subject of the BLP, his album and his books are not notable. Wikipedia rules of notability have very clear guidelines for notability, and the links provided by Rapulu to prove notability are either unreliable sources or highly questionable.

I've gone through all 11 (eleven) links provided by Rapulu and cross-checked them for reliability. Here's my summary: all eleven links are either unreliable, or the content of the source is highly questionable.

1) In this highly questionable interview, the subject of the BLP is quoted as saying, that Mother Theresa made a prophesy concerning him, that he "would one day be honoured with the Nobel Prize." Wikipedia's Rule of Verifiability states that Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Due to the exceptional claim found in this source, this source therefore is highly questionable, and thusly not reliable.

2) This link leads to a blogspot ----> Wikipedia:Source#Sources states: "....blogs are largely not acceptable". = unreliable source.

3) This link leads to a page from a german non-notable internet radio = unreliable source

4) youtube link. no further comment required here. (=unreliable source, for those who still don't know)

5) blogspot. not acceptable as a reliable source.

6) blogspot. not acceptable as a reliable source.

7) This article has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the BLP. The title of the article is: "Will you allow your partner’s ex spend the night in your house?" The subject of the BLP is only mentioned once in this article in one line: "No way, not in my own house - Lurrenz, Musician". This link is irrelevant and is therefore no reliable source.

8) Title of the article: "More tears for Michael Jackson in Nollywood". Subject of the BLP says he can't go to Michael Jacksons concert "because Mike is no more". This link is irrelevant and is therefore no reliable source.

9) Topic: Nollywood stars mourn Jackson. Subject of the BLP is quoted thusly: "I was one of the first people to be notified as I stated on facebook. Black people are coward. We said he did surgery, a lot of whites did. Some megastars like Victoria Beckham, Jeniffer Lopez among others also did but the world is still worshipping them. We should have supported him." This link is irrelevant and is therefore no reliable source.

10) There is no evidence that this organization is properly registered in Sweden or Denmark. Like all other EU countries, Sweden and Denmark have laws guiding the creation of NGOs or charitable organizations, and like all other EU countries, the websites of NGOs or charitable organizations must provide evidence of proper registration on their website. On http://childrenafrica.com there is no evidence about any proper registration as either a NGO or charitable organization. There is nothing written on the website to indicate that this is a NGO or charitable organization. To further confuse the matter, on the "About us" page of Childrenafrica.com, it is stated that "Children Africa was founded in Sweden in 2004 by Lawrence R. Onuzulike (a.k.a Lurrenz)." However, on the "Contact us" page, a Danish and Nigerian contact address is written. Due to this inconsistency the impression is created of an unserious organisation which does not fully adhere to Swedish, Danish or EU laws. This link is therefore not a reliable source.

11) This link is about the subject of the BLP, and contains highly questionable information. The article claims that "In Sweden, this cool-looking gentleman is regarded as one of the most important African music artistes living and working in that country." A swedish regional search of the Subject of the BLP yields 19 results. None of these 19 sites are reliable sources. Surely, if the information found on punchontheweb.com is correct, then there must be swedish sites to prove this. Since there are none, this creates the impression that the punchontheweb.com site is using unverified and unchecked information, probably given to them by the subject of the BLP, to write that article. This link therefore is not a reliable source.

The entire 11 links do not in any way prove notability. Amsaim (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see my comments above about the first three sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final response by Rapulu[edit]

I'm the person that tried to create this page. This is my last response and if it's not enough. Please kindly delete the page. It's beginning to suck up all my energy. When I was creating the page, I was hoping to get help if I do any wrong, I wasn't expecting such a fight, insult and hatred.

Hello Phil Bridger, the link you called a blogspot is not what you think, The link belongs to Guardian Newspapers Visit the papers main website and scroll down you'll still see the link to their weekend art magazine called The Guardian Art Magazine, and that's what you called a blogspot. It doesn't look like you're carrying out as much investigations as you claim.

In The Sun Newspapers interview, they referred to him as the owner of his myspace page at [74] The interview was carried out when Myspace was still hot for musicians and it's always mentioned during interviews even by top American celebrities. The Sun never said he was the owner of MYSPACE.COM. You don't seem neutral in this affair, you seem to have found me (the page creator) guilty and that's clearly clouding your judgment.

I never disagreed with the fact that the first time I created the page it sounded like a promotional page, and that was my intention (to promote the subject) because then I didn't know the rules of wikipedia. But when I recreated the page, I removed everything promotional. Yes I'm not a wikipedia expert but I can tell you a whole lot of things I'm expert at that you're not. I made the first mistakes and corrected them, after Nancy pointed them out in a humanely way tome, so why are you bringing it up again? Are you really helping wikipedia or just trying to satisfy your ego. Right now I'm writing like this because I feel offended by the way you tackle this topic. You've call Mr. Lawrence Onuzulike a shameless self promoter, and now you're insulting the The Daily Sun Newspapers for not doing their job or carrying out your style of hatred-laden sad investigation. They don't need an investigation into the subject's life because the subject is well know by all of them and they knew his life, even from Childhood.

And as for the claim that Mother Theresa made the claim to him, how on earth do you want me or the subject to produce proof? He, as a child, could have recorded it by an invisible recorder in other to present it to wikipedia after more than ten years? If you want to found out things, research. Contact the missionary of Charity and confirm about the subject's activities there in 1997, it's that simple

You guys have more energy than I about this issue because I can clearly see that someone is very sad about another person. So kindly delete this page immediately to save everybody headache. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.149.20 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rapulu. Could you sign into you account and confirm the above comment? If so then the article can be spedily deleted per our criteria on authors requesting deletion. Thanks! Pedro : Chat 20:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all[edit]

I just think this should be a friendly debate and not a do-or-die affair. However, there are a few points I want to point out.

Phil Bridger is wrong when he said that there's a law mandating all organizations to put their registration details on their websites, please kindly post the portion of the law that says that. And one more thing, do you know that many organizations don't even have website? Then how will you research about their existence and works? The answer is simple, contact the government's office responsible for registering an organizations in the country and in Sweden, it's the tax office. It's easier to confirm if the organization is duly registered, then if it's registered, ask them for the official address. I believe they'll help if they know you're investigating for Wikipedia. Please kindly let me know where the registration number of this well known organization in Sweden is Tibet Charity Sweden Even though their website is undergoing some renovations but if the law really states that the registration be shown all the time, it must be shown since they still show their account to receive funds from donors.

When The Punch Newspapers said the subject is an important person in Sweden, I believe they meant among Africans in Sweden. Searching his name in Swedish websites and getting 19 results, which you said are not reliable is a poor investigation. His country media recognized him, and he's being added in Wikipedia as a Nigerian so you should be searching for how important he is to Africans.

You seem to limit your investigations to the internet and that's not good for many African countries which have poor internet technology. For instance, search for this person morocco maduka, I bet you there are not so many results and you'll probably find most of the links non reliable. But morocco maduka is a music legend in Nigeria with numerous awards. You can verify this by contacting any Nigerian media house.

If you really want to help and not fight, contact the right places and do proper research and not base your investigations on google search. Africa is not America yet when it comes to putting our lives online. Even google search of the subject showed 42,800 and there are many interviews and articles about him. But somehow you manage to found a way to discredit many major newspapers in Africa. As an African, I find out really amazing.

Have a nice day everybody.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.149.20 (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Pedro[edit]

I'm glad another person entered this conversation because I was tired of dealing with your over zealous editor who shows clear bias in his investigations.

But Pedro please address this questions raised by my friend above. Let your so called Wikipedia admin post the section of European law that states that each NGO must paste their registration on their websites. In Sweden you don't even have to register your NGO to be recognized. What's important to them is that you do good work. Yes, I called the Kommune and asked about this before writing it. And oh yes, Children Africa was duly registered in Malmo, southern Sweden. I've taken photographs of this page, as advised by the Nigerian community in Uppsala - which happened to have an end of the year meeting some days back where I showed them this discussion, hence my friends response above. We have decided to ask Wikipedia the following questions;

1) Should Wikipedia's so-called admins lie and make up laws in other not to get a black man into Wikipedia?
2) Should the admins be insulting and held Africa in contempt (the discrediting of all major news media in Nigeria)
3) Should the admins be racists?
3) Must Africans be recognized by the west to be able to be on Wikipedia (the is because we've received too many complains about what other people passed through before their submissions of Africans were accepted in Wikipedia)

If we don't get proper answer to the above. We'll now go further with our complain. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapulu (talk • contribs) 20:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wohhhhhhhhhhhhaaa. You seriously, I mean seriously, have problems here Rapulu. 1) European Law has nothing - and I mean nothing - to do with Wikipedia. 2) Read WP:NLT - now. Your above is dangerously close to a legal threat and if so I will block your account pending your legal petition for remedy. 3) Your Point of View regarding some seeming threat against Africa, black people et. al. is frankly surreal. I'm happy to help but this webiste is not against you - against anyone - and you'd better wise up very fast on that matter. Pedro : Chat 20:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Rapulu to Pedro[edit]

So it's now clear that your over zealous editor cannot confirm his lies and made up EU laws. Welcome to Wikipedia. So now you can happy delete the page I created. And as for blocking me, that was too late because I've since yesterday searched Wikipedia on how to delete my account because I want nothing to do with a place like this. Too bad that accounts can't be deleted. Meanwhile delete the page Lawrence Onuzulike. Yes I've given the go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapulu (talk • contribs) 09:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchel Hahn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG (only trivial sources) and WP:ATHLETE (never played professional football). -- Big Dom 09:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability Spiderone 09:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Subject fails WP:ATHLETE and the article even states this, never played competitively for a pro team! Fenix down (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The suggestion that competing in the Maccabiah Games might confer notability has been previously discussed and rejected. Kevin McE (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Kevin McE (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He fails Wp:ATHLETE, having never played for a professional team in a professional division. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played at a fully-professional level. --Jimbo^[online] 13:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gajim[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)

Delete. I am unable to locate non-trivial coverage of substance from reliable third party publications. While searching Google News archives and Google Books, I did come across this brief mention in the book "XMPP: The Definitive Guide" but nothing near substantial. JBsupreme (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged this as needing sources showing notability several weeks ago and nobody has touched it. Miami33139 (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep : it is in official clients list : http://xmpp.org/software/clients.shtml — Neustradamus (✉) 12:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a fact which does not even attempt to demonstrate notability. Miami33139 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep : This is bordering on silliness - Gajim is extremely well-known within the XMPP community, and used by some 20% of the XMPP users, see [75]. It's the first and only implementation of the experimental crypto in the eSessions protocol, from a purely academic standpoint. The pomposity of "I haven't heard of it and it's only mentioned in the only published book on XMPP so it can't be important" is just plain foolish, I'm sorry to say. 217.155.137.60 (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This software is well known to a bunch of geeks. That does not make it encyclopedic. Let's see significant coverage from reliable sources. Miami33139 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ehm, I guess that after all, magnetohydrodynamics or alpha-synuclein are known only to a "bunch of geeks": only happens that such geeks use academic articles to communicate, while the free software community doesn't. RS problem notwithstanding, treating software users with such contempt is not exactly civil and, if anything, puts your arguments in a bad WP:IDONTLIKEIT light. --Cyclopia^talk 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I include myself in the geek group, it isn't incivil. Miami33139 (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, ok. The comment gave another impression. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, heavens above. Yes, this software is well known to experts in the field. I can claim to be such an expert. According to your own criteria, then, this software is notable. Dave Cridland, XSF Member and XMPP Council Member. 217.155.137.60 (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as one of main XMPP clients. There is also a Linux.com review for example. Unfortunately free software has avenues for discussion that are not always "official", and as such one has to be extra careful and apply some common sense, before declaring that such a software is not notable. --Cyclopia^talk 16:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the actual size of its userbase free software has plenty of available sources. Wikipedia has a systemic bias in software and needs to be held to the same standards as other articles. We do not need to weaken our standards to protect the bias. Wikipedia is not a software directory. What is significant and important about this chat software that makes it more prominent than average chat software that makes it an encyclopedic topic? Miami33139 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "A systemic bias in software"? Could you elaborate on that? It is new to me. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is widely spread free software. Hubbitus (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)— Hubbitus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep There are users all over the world, development is very active. asterix_86 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)— asterix_86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+source/gajim
- http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Chat/Instant-Messaging/Gajim.shtml
- http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Communications/Chat/Gajim-3545.shtml
- http://packages.debian.org/unstable/net/gajim
- http://www.gentoo-portage.com/net-im/gajim
- https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/gajim — Neustradamus (✉) 20:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. Some of the SPAs that !vote here also showed up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QutIM (3rd nomination). A check-user seems in order. Pcap ping 15:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has fairly long reviews in Linux.com [76], and Softpedia [77]. Mentioned in this XMPP book. It's reasonably notable for this kind of software I'd say. Pcap ping 16:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Softpedia.com is not a notability reference. They have indiscriminate criteria on what they will review (everything). Miami33139 (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have a basis for such an assertion? --Cybercobra (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - They will publish anything submitted to them if it passes an anti-virus test, including short and long descriptions submitted by the developer. Their stated goal is to publish everything and to review as much as possible. That is an impossible standard of judgment at odds with Wikipedia's criteria. I don't usually have a huge problem with Softpedia being used as an RS about facts, but their reviews are meaningless to assert notability. Reviews are the primary content that drives their revenue. They have no interest in not reviewing anything submitted. Miami33139 (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Softpedia review. We had a similar discussion in the past about linux.com; that was before the site changed ownership. It had a "reviews" part of the web site where there was editorial oversight, and a "news" part in which there wasn't; well, not as much, it wasn't a wiki. But it was easy to tell the two apart. (See also Bruce Byfield's post-non-disclosure agreement take on it). Now, as far as Softpedia goes, the same is true. The have an editorial team which nowadays employs two editors for Linux matters. Take one of them for instance. He write both reviews, e.g. [78], which are cleary identified as such in the title, format (see stars at the end), and URL, but he also just "sings off" (I guess) on news e.g. [79], which again have a different URL and format: only the 1st paragraph appears written by the Softpedia editor, and he attributes the news piece to whoever let it out, in that case "Robert Shingledecker, founder of the Tiny Core Linux project, ..." So there's a clear enough distinction between the two sections of Softpedia, just like linux.com had. Now one can argue that these guys are from Romania etc., and that their reviews aren't a of such high-quality, but you can't say their review section is indiscriminate or user-submitted. The gajim Softpedia piece I linked above is a review, not a news release. Pcap ping 14:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is indiscriminate is their criteria for what they review. They will review anything and everything. The issue isn't about whether they are an RS about facts but whether the presence of a review is evidence of notability. Notability wants non-routine coverage. Softpedia reviews are routine because they are indiscriminate. All software eventually will have a softpedia review. Miami33139 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my impression. They've have some 23 "Linux software reviews" for the entire 2009 [80], most of these are well-know products, major distros etc. So, one review every two weeks or so. Given that they have two paid Linux editors, it doesn't seem like a review mill. If anything, they have an editorial bias for desktop Linux products, but I'm not sure that's impeachable. Pcap ping 19:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And no QutIM review :P Pcap ping 19:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pcap's sources; meets minimum GNG requirements of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD is mentioned in an external blog with hundreds of Russian participants, http://habrahabr.ru/blogs/im/78756/#habracut There may be future disruption and dogpile "voting." Miami33139 (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- nice, there are users! You can look because you are already verifiable sources on comments and articles pages — Neustradamus (✉) 09:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can remove Windows Live Messenger, AIM, Yahoo! Messenger, ICQ, Skype because it is not open source and commercial, and used less that XMPP who the first network on the world (GTalk, Gizmo5, LiveJournal, Jabber.org, Jabber.ru, and more Public XMPP Services, Federation JabberFR Jabber @ Apinc Jabber/XMPP Server List... — Neustradamus (✉) 10:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That sounds like blatant bias against proprietary software/networks. Keep in mind that Wikipedia strives to be neutral. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So why you remove all official clients ? so it is cited in books http://books.google.com/books?cd=1&as_brr=3&q=gajim+xmpp&btnG=Search+Books — Neustradamus (✉) 10:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (a) Gajim isn't the official client of any platform (e.g. GNOME, KDE, etc.) [not that that matters anyway] (b) The "citation" is a brief entry in a directory of clients (c) I voted above to Keep Gajim; though by "you" I'm guessing you mean Wikipedia generally (as if it were a conspiracy hive mind). In which case, let me inform you that there isn't a cabal, just paranoia due to your perspective. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        it is official XMPP client of the XMPP Standards Foundation; XMPP protocol is a standard by IETF; Windows Live Messenger is official client by Microsoft, and AIM/ICQ of for AOL, ... but for XMPP there are a lot of official client, you can accept this — Neustradamus (✉) 11:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Gajim by a NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL student — Neustradamus (✉) 19:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Linux.com review. Honeyman (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one review does not make significant third party reliable sources. The software needs more to be notable. 16x9 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has a second review - the Softpedia one. See above. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Make that three, if you count the quick take on Tom's Hardware [81]. Pcap ping 00:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I understand it correctly, the Linux.com review and content is user generated and lacks peer review/fact checking [82] making it a non-reliable source. The Tom's Hardware link is a meager two sentences, not really meeting any stretch of the definition of "non-trivial coverage". I am not familiar with the reliability of Softpedia.com. Is their content user generated as well? JBsupreme (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not the reviews. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore, I just looked at the Softpedia link, it is a directory listing, not a critical review by any means. Upon full review of the links provided thus far, I continue to endorse my original delete !vote at this time. JBsupreme (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, the softpedia one is an actual editorial review; it's just on the same page as the directory info. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think there was some confusion about that, because the link in the article was different from the link on this page [83]. I fixed the article. Pcap ping 08:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - JB, Except for the length of coverage in Tom's Hardware, you're wrong on all counts. Tom's is a round-up of similar products, but it's the most recent take on gajim, that's why I added it to lead instead of the 2005-2006 longer reviews, which do cover it more depth. Maybe you want to read about cognitive dissonance, especially since you've been removing info from the linux.com article that contradicts your view of how it worked before it changed ownership, which is when that review was written. Pcap ping 08:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a part of Debian( http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=Gajim&searchon=names&suite=all&section=all&sourceid=mozilla-search ), fedora ( https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/gajim?_csrf_token=b535ae6e4e03863504880922c5ff869ec00697be ) and maybe other linux( or even some *nix like) distributions. So this software is officially supported and passes distros QA. This should be considered as a reliable proof, that software is notable, and a sign that author could be trusted. Also there are descriptions made by distros maintainers, yes they are rather trivial and intended for a large non-technician audience, but it is a reliable source of general information about software. Furthermore, open source contains 100% reliable description within itself, and large technical descriptions by third side are not needed, because every authors claim about their software can be verified directly. So the claim, that there is no non-trivial information is ether a lie, or the author of that claim is not enough qualified to make judgments about software. Again, there is a reliable source of general information for end users, and the reliable source of specific information for developer is provided by open source code. The later is true, because it was enough for distribution maintainers to make software a part of distribution. 81.94.20.122 (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being in a repository for a Linux distro does not make notability. Source code availability does not satisfy verifiability. Miami33139 (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This software is not just in distro. Open source is notable and IM is notable. Gajim is one of the most popular open source IM clients. Now read again my previous post. How is that one of the most popular software for a notable IM in several notable distros( read operation systems) is not notable? As for "source verifiability", it was enough for maintainers. And professionals opinion is much more "notable" than yours( no offense), and your favorite journalists from magazines. Because debian and fedora alone is more "notable" than any magazine. And being in distro is not just files on disks, it is more about infrastructure, which is also a source of reliable information. And the last, from previous considerations, if software is included in several notable distros and is for some "notable" and non-trivial purpose, it becomes automatically notable. 81.94.16.117 (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, since it's one of the most famous and respected software for open standard chat overt the internet. Nyco (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is obvious, the sources would be too. Miami33139 (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, the point is that open source stuff, unfortunately, does not follow the same official publishing avenus of other subjects. Software can be highly notable, in the "common sense" meaning of being something used and known by a huge amount of people, yet being not sourced from dead tree magazines as one could expect. We should apply some judgement on the basis of these facts. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPodLinux[edit]

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

Delete. I am unable to locate non-trivial coverage of substance from reliable third party publications for this Linux distro. JBsupreme (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per IPod Repair QuickSteps (book), Popular Science Jul 2006, The official CHFI study guide (book), and Take control of your iPod (book). Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search has over 200 results. And the books mentioning it are impressive as well. Dream Focus 01:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Google results are among the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. ~ 10nitro (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google NEWS, not just Google. And those essay pages are meaningless batter, put there by anyone who wants to give their opinion on anything. If its mentioned that many times in major news sources, its notable. Dream Focus 02:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On desktops, *nix only has around a max of 15% market share, less if we exclude Mac OS X -- yet it still has a significant impact. Given the clear impact necessary to be mentioned on SlashDot, Newscientist.com, Popular Science magazine, as well as several technical books on the iPod. This significance is magnified by the fact that it is one of only 3 systems available for the iPod (the Apple firmware, iPodLinux, RockBox). iPodLinux was the first group to release documentation on much of the iPods' technical specifications. The project would be noteworthy, if just for this contribution (which, currently, is under-documented in the article). Whether or not the above managed to properly convince you, the only relevant thing that Wikipedia is Not is an indiscriminate collection of information (notability). Now, notability is a very relative term, and means different things to different people, but there are some things that clearly don't belong on Wikipedia (I think there's a wikiproject or something with that title). Given the argument, I don't think it is in the group "clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia", if it is in the gray area, I think the article should be kept. If it is in the gray area, and there isn't significant other reason to delete it, I believe that it should be kept, much on the same principals of Good Faith.

As I said, the project would be noteworthy if just for it's contribution of technical documentation. It would also be greatly improved by more (non-primary)/(3rd party) sources. However, this is not reason to delete it, AFD is not cleanup.

You may object to my involvement in this discussion and the article, on grounds that I am somewhat involved in the iPodLinux wiki. I became a primary editor of the article before my involvement there. Also, I am primarily only an editor there. I don't generally create new content, but organize, copy-edit, cite, etc. What is there. I treat it much as an expanded version of this article, as I realized much of the data is unsuitable for here, as either technical, too detailed, etc. ~ 10nitro (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care if you're involved with iPodLinux or not, I just care if there are reliable third party sources covering the project. It appears that there are, so I am withdrawing this deletion request. JBsupreme (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources found by Joe Chill, and coverage goes back as far as 2004: Hadley Stern, iPod & iTunes hacks, O'Reilly Media, ISBN 0596007787, pp. 199–207. These seem enough to satisfy WP:GNG. There are quite a few details in this article from less reliable sources, but that's not a reason to delete the whole thing. Pcap ping 16:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of The Cleveland Show episodes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Bed to Worse[edit]

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

Unreferenced with little or no real world relevance. No evidence that this episode is particularly notable. Consists entirely of plot and trivia. Corporation Cart (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to List of The Cleveland Show episodes. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Article can easilly, and appropriately be expanded, both in content and references. Gage (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - No need. I've proven myself by expanding many articles related to Family Guy, for example, Dog Gone (Family Guy). Gage (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a need because not every article is the same. Joe Chill (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:GageSkidmore has resorted to votestacking in order to sway the outcome of this discussion. --78.34.248.43 (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced as nom states. anyone who says "No need. I've proven myself" needs to put up or shut up. source it or gtfo. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Comment - Done. Gage (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of The Cleveland Show episodes. Despite being expanded there is still little evidence that this episode is notable. A handful of review words and ratings do not indicate context or the impact a work of fiction has had in the real world. Fails WP:EPISODE and does not meet WP:WAF. 121.45.222.238 (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This user has two contributions, makes me think of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Gage (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A accusation of bad faith like that is rich coming from someone who has been canvassing in this very AfD, then reacted by removing another user's comment. --78.34.194.95 (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete we can't have a wikipedia page for every episode of every TV show, that would be madness. Sure, there are particularly famous examples (Fonzie jumping the shark for example) but by all accounts, this is just a standard episode of a standard TV show, with all respect to the fans of the show. There's nothing special about it at all.Callivert (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep episode articals of animated series are difrent from the real life there's more production and more info and notability.--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. An episode is an eposide. There is no inherent notability just because it is animated. There is no evidence that this episode is notable. Corporation Cart (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All ready real world reviews and more real world "stuff" can be added. CTJF83 chat 20:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nota bene: This vote has been canvassed. (See Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking) --78.34.248.43 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, one ~~vote~~ strongly influences this discussion, my apologies. Gage (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not a vote. Consensus is not a majority vote and Wikipedia is not a democracy. ShipFan (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - In no way was I suggesting that, just a misused word. Gage (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Votestacking is widely frowned upon and you should never do it. --78.34.194.95 (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge and redirect. I am a fan of the show but I agree there is nothing special about this episode. ShipFan (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge etc as above. An individual episode of any show is not usually so notable as to merit its own article. Sussexonian (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compelling Feature[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Prod removed without explanation by article creator; original rationale was "Unreferenced and containing little or no useful information. Fails WP:VER and WP:OR" KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:COATRACK. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 06:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a WP:NEOLOGISM that is not notable as a term for the concept it seems to be trying to describe --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:COATRACK, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Creator has now removed AFD tag three times and is well on his way to getting blocked. MuffledThud (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research andy (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bengt Oelmann[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar provides no evidence (such as highly cited publications) that would lead to a pass of WP:PROF #1, nor do I see any other reason for keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS also lends no evidence – shows an h-index of only 2 ("Author=(Oelmann B*)"). Uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Francis[edit]

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

For somebody who is allegedly a prominent figure in Canadian journalism, this individual lacks significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. In its current state sources are the subject's own website, blog, and articles. I have been unable to find non-trivial coverage specifically about the subject. Also, it was originally created by a sockpuppet (FWIW). Grsz¹¹ 05:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found plenty of 3d party sources (noted on the talk page) to place this author in the middle of Canadian journalism in the 1980s and 1990s. It deserves WP:BETTER, not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Vielmetti (talk • contribs)
Keep the subject is clearly notable. Heaps of sites refer to her works as being best sellers- especially "controlling interest" - the authors of this article should try to find some sales figures. heres an example of a story i found on her http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=483a60ac-673e-4103-9415-c29a3bc934d0&k=78266 --Brunk500 (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Front-page national columnist for a national newspaper. The Editor of the Financial Post for many years, and now the Editor-at-Large for the National Post. These are major newspapers. Has had four books on the Globe and Mail best-seller list: the first, Controlling Interest: Who Owns Canada?, was number one on the list for ten weeks in 1978 if my hardcopy source is accurate. One of the country's best-known columnists. This article may be poor because Francis is highly controversial - she is considered to be on the far right of the political spectrum. Extremely notable, however. Edit: also tagging as Canada-related deletion discussion to get more eyes on this. --NellieBly (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —NellieBly (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a well-known journalist and editor, whose article needs to be improved upon. PK T(alk) 19:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search today (Dec. 18, 2009) returns over 70 articles with the phrase "Diane Francis." Although many of them are undoubtedly being generated by her recent controversial editorial on a global one-child policy (potentially a WP:BLP1E), this combined with 9 published works, editor at a significant publication and contributor at a significant political blog causes her to pass the notability test. The article does need significant improvement.Eastshire (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Based on the sourcing it would be a delete - no significant mentions found in major reliable sources. Right now it just seems to be a storm in the blogosphere. But looking at the facts behind this, she has been the editor of some prominent (if not centrist) publications, published books that sold well, and appeared all over the place. Her recent punditry has created quite a stir but not in the mainstream press. If I were to step back and ask which politics writers should be covered to give the reader an encyclopedic understanding of what is going on, it seems like she would pass that test. Maybe take a step back, give it a little time, and look for sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple published works, and a vast body of work in Canada's largest newspapers as a featured contributor and editor. Needs some more sourcing, but this is an easy keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question that article needs improvement, but she's most certainly notable enough for inclusion. And the sockpuppet in question didn't have a record of creating invalid articles; their issue had to do with the insertion of POV interpretations into legitimate articles — so that's not a terribly useful deletion rationale. Keep, maybe even with a bit of WP:SNOW. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There don't appear to be enough (or any) reliable sources available covering this to show notability. Fences&Windows 22:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jabbin[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)

This was restored in WP:DRV as a contested prod. I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched Google News archives and Google Books [84] and could not find anything relevant / significant. If someone else knows of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties please drop me a line on my talk page so I can reconsider. JBsupreme (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again No sources to judge, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep : already said, you can look discussion pages, same person yet ... strange — Neustradamus (✉) 11:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References added — Neustradamus (✉) 13:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep [85] is a reliable source solely about the topic. This appears to be be also" [86]. Meets WP:N, plenty of trivial sources/blogs/discussion to indicate this also meet the traditional definition of "notable" in that people are discussing it. Hobit (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Linux.com article is significant coverage. The second one is a copy of Free Software Magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://code.google.com/p/jabbin-svn-pack-kubuntu/
- https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/jabbin
- https://launchpad.net/jabbin
- http://jabbin.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jabbin/
- http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/how_to_make_jabber_calls_using_jabbin
- http://www.sophos.com/security/analyses/controlled-applications/jabbin.html
- http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/57711 — Neustradamus (✉) 20:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I heard in a previous AFD that people pay them to write reviews on their software on Free Software Magazine which I don't know if it's true. The rest are not significant coverage. So that is one possible sources. Joe Chill (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://wapiti.telecom-lille1.eu/commun/ens/peda/options/ST/RIO/pub/exposes/exposesrio2008-ttnfa2009/Clara-Delcroix/applications.html
  - http://www.generation-nt.com/comparatif-clients-jabber-test-messagerie-instantanee-msn-wlm-article-24991-8.html
  - http://www.icewarp.hu/termekek/09_uzenetkuldo_szerver/index.htm
  - http://www.rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/Nicolas_Vigier__nvigier_mandriva.com_.html
  - http://2007.jres.org/planning/slides/82.pdf <- Présentation de l'INRIA
  - http://www.slideshare.net/Nyco/clients-xmpp-sl07
  - http://blop.info/bazaar/xmppjabber-rmll2006.pdf
  - http://nyco.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/jingle-la-voix-et-les-sessions-multimedia-sur-jabber/
  - http://www.alijawad.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=21
  - http://walon.org/walon/jabber.php
  - http://faq.programmerworld.net/lang/fr/voip/voip-free-software.html
  - http://www.freebase.com/view/en/jabbin
  - http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Network_Other/im.html
  - http://www.saint-andre.com/jabber/Jingle-Tech.pdf
  - http://projekt.ladokenheten.umu.se/main.php/open-source-voip-and-video-conferencing-software.pdf?fileitem=2719962
  - http://21talks.net/featured/10-skype-alternatives — Neustradamus (✉) 10:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=166861&ugn=jabbin&type=prdownload&mode=alltime&package_id=0 SourceForge.net: Project Statistics for Jabbin — Neustradamus (✉) 21:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- it is cited in book : http://books.google.com/books?cd=1&as_brr=3&q=jabber+jabbin&btnG=Search+Books — Neustradamus (✉) 10:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The word Jabbin appears on page 94 with a URL. This is not a book about Jabbin. Please stop finding random text string matches from google searches and presenting them as sources. Miami33139 (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok but you can look that Jabbin is cited on different conferences ... I hope that you understand — Neustradamus (✉) 11:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is being canvassed at [87]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant third party coverage of this software. 16x9 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to sourcing issues. Lack of independence and lack of source reliability. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jabbin is cited on conferences, reviews, book, and you can look sourceforge stats... It is not good sources ? and it still in development — Neustradamus (✉) 09:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "In development" isn't a good sign. Notability isn't anticipatory. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the FSM and Linux.com articles. The other sources seem to be mere mentions. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats the same source twice but according to linux about the content is user generated and appears to lack peer review or fact checking so its not a RS. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't happen to notice that. Good catch. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per linux.com review (reviews there are reliable) and Free Software Magazine column, which is also reliable enough: At Free Software Magazine, a restricted number of people are marked as “columnists”. Their entries are edited by the FSM staff, and are always promoted to the front page. Saying that these source are not reliable is like saying CNN isn't reliable because they also have iReport. Pcap ping 10:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage appears to be superficial and not "in depth". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- This is more "in depth" than most IM client reviews I've seen. Pcap ping 05:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Ride (Swiss film)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability other than a single German-language review (linked in the "External links" section), which is insufficient per WP:NF. Google search for "Joy Ride" and "Martin Rengell" does not yield much. Possible notability for the real-life incident upon which the film is based (I've not looked), but if that's the case then it should have it's own article. PC78 (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess being a Dogme 95 film isn't enough on its own? Lugnuts (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it be? PC78 (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe I've found enough to improve and source the article. On it now. Will report back when have done so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in non-English sources. Request additional input with sourcing from European Wikipedians. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with MichaelQSchmidt. Highest Heights (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now sources have been found - good work MichaelQSchmidt! Lugnuts (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidence of notability has been found. Dream Focus 01:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 folk punk. In the absence of a significant number of bands being demonstrably a part of this particularly specific genre, this list seems doomed to be either chronically underpopulated or woefully undersourced. Consensus in the past has generally supported the existence of this type of "list of (genre) bands" article, but in this particular case no strong argument for a separate article has been offered: sourceable bands can be readily included in folk punk until such a time as enough are available to warrant a separate list. ~ mazca ^talk 02:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of folk punk bands[edit]

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

Not a list, and certainly not a list of bands. It contains one entry, of a solo musician. Granted, it could be populated (and once was), but this information is better captured by a category, which already exists. Chubbles (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As with most lists, particularly genre lists of musicians, sources would be required to demonstrate that artists belong in the list. The list was previously populated, but after reviewing every entry Billy Bragg was the only one I found whose article had a single reference describing him as folk punk. In fact, about ½ of the listed artists did not have the words "folk punk" anywhere in their individual articles. Hardly suprising, as the folk punk article itself is not well-referenced and the label seems to be applied primarily according to editors' POV. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list is not redundant to a category; as they organize the information in different ways, "there's already a category" is never a valid rationale for deleting a list. There are some classes of information best presented as a list without a matching category, and some classes of information best presented by a list/category combo, but there is no such thing as any class of information best presented as a category without a matching list. The fact that a category exists never justifies deleting a list — particularly given the fact that a list is the only form of presentation that can be properly referenced in the manner desired here, whereas it's not possible to reference a category at all. So if referencing is the problem, then why would we want to delete the only form of this information to which it's even possible to add any type of referencing?

Note also that a band's musical genre can almost always be verified by simply listening to the band's music, and accordingly I'm mystified as to what sources Chubbles and IllaZilla would consider acceptable; as an example, I know of at least one band that IllaZilla removed from the list on the basis that their article didn't explicitly contain the exact phrase "folk punk" with supporting independent source, despite the fact that the article does explicitly contain the exact phrase "that blends punk rock with folk rock" with supporting independent source. I'd welcome a coherent explanation as to exactly what distinction IllaZilla presumes can possibly be deemed to separate the genre of "folk punk" from the genre of "blends punk rock with folk rock", because it's certainly not one based on what the words mean. Ergo, keep. Bearcat (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that lists should be kept when they are useful. This may not be keyed to a specific policy, but it is eminently reasonable; useless things are useless and there is no sense keeping them around if they waste people's time. If a list exists that is not useful, especially one that requires significant maintenance, then it should not be kept. This list is not currently useful, as it is not actually a list at all. That doesn't mean that it is always not useful. However, the category function completely satisfies what this list does. It's entirely the same presentation of information - redundant. We do not need to have the exact same thing twice on the site. If the list provided any other information that the category could not, I would defend its existence, but it does not.

As for verifying genre by listening...Well, good luck. An enormous amount of time is spent dickering on Wikipedia over the subjectivity of genres; I don't believe that will be solved by listening, or by sourcing. In any case, it's immaterial to AfD as far as I am concerned. Chubbles (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that a band's musical genre can almost always be verified by simply listening to the band's music, and accordingly I'm mystified as to what sources Chubbles and IllaZilla would consider acceptable

Um, no, that's original research, and this list is a perfect case in point. I myself am a big fan of punk rock and related genres, with a huge record collection to that effect (it's even the topic of my masters thesis). Sure, there are a handful of artists previously on this list whose music I could (and do) listen to and I think to myself "OK, this is folk punk because it's punk rock with folk influences". However, there were a number of acts on the list who I think it entirely ludicrous to call folk punk, because their music is either in no way punk or in no way folk (or in some cases, none of either): Beck, DeVotchKa, Dead Milkmen, Panic! at the Disco, The Lawrence Arms, Tiger Army, Violent Femmes, and The Weakerthans are all good examples. I've listened to all of these artists' music, and in my opinion none of them are "folk punk". So why were they on the list? Because in the opinion of the IP editor who populated the list (and who I assume also listened to their music), they were "folk punk". Clearly we can't "almost always verify the genre simply by listening to the band's music", because genres are inherently subjective to determine. What I think is the most appropriate genre, someone else is bound to disagree with, and vice versa. The only way to satisfactorily label a band a particular genre, from the standpoint of an encyclopedia, is to reference that label to reliable sources.

As to your question of what sources I would consider acceptable to qualify an artist for inclusion, my answer is simple: almost any secondary source describing the artist as "folk punk" or explaining how their music fits that genre. This could include reviewers, critics, music analysts or historians, etc. And no, I'm not talking about a source that simply says they "blend punk rock with folk rock". I'm talking about a source that actually uses the term "folk punk", because that's the only way to verify that a genre by this name actually exists and that independent sources are applying it to a specific act. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge with folk punk and continue to insist on reliable sources. If it gets longer it can be broken out again. Polarpanda (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to merge. There was 1 artist on the list who is referred to as "folk punk" in a reliable source, and that source isn't even in the article, it's in the artist's article. I hardly think merging an unref'd 1-item list of any value. Artists who are described as "folk punk" by reliable sources can certainly be mentioned in the folk punk article, and if a lot of these turn up then in the future someone can start a new list article per WP:SS. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found a reliable source for the Pogues and Flogging Molly, but it's in Hungarian. Polarpanda (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to go to Hungarian to find someone writing about them that way, I doubt it's a case worth making. But anyway, I don't think referencing solves the essential problem. Chubbles (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists like these are clearly valid for wp, so I'm not sure why this has been prodded. I agree with Illazilla that when dealing with sub-genres that fuse two or more styles of music, we need references that specifically describe the bands style as "folk punk" to indicate that this is a genuine genre rather than a scene term. This list is identical in structure, and from the proddings it has received here, here and here there seems to be just about sufficient concensus to keep, so this list should be trteated similarly. I assume good faith in Illazilla's editing of this list, but by deleting bands individually and then not stating which band has been removed in the edit summary makes it very hard to revert bands that actually apply to the list. I would suggest all edits by Illazilla are reverted and specific references added where possible with greater clarity provided when one is actually removed. Fenix down (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggesting that all of my edits be reverted simply because I didn't name each band I was removing in my edit summary is totally inappropriate. The reason I went through the list item-by-item was so that anyone could look at the page history, trace my steps one by one, and re-add any artist that they were prepared to add sources for. I left detailed edit summaries each time as to why I was removing each entry; to suggest totally reverting my work is ridiculous, after I took the trouble to not only go through the entire list but also check every individual artist's article to see if there were sources describing them as "folk punk". There weren't, so my edits amounted to removing unverified original research. That's not something that should be reverted. Anyone who wants to see which artists were removed is welcome to look back through the page history. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a (would-be) collection of links. Geschichte (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Hoax Seems somebody just "trolling" the Wikipedia and "list of" articles with one band. Funny. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list actually was much longer but edits were made by illazillla to remove a load as they were unreferenced. Fenix down (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the category is so great at capturing this information, why can't we just use that to repopulate this list? Polarpanda (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the category is great at capturing this information, why do we need the list at all? What purpose does it serve? Chubbles (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Yi[edit]

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

Non-notable music producer. Written in a self-advert manner. Unreferenced. Mattg82 (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as thoroughly nonnotable, promotion. - Altenmann >t 23:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This "emerging" producer has not yet attained notability, as defined by Wikipedia guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louder Than The Music[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Launched in in March 2009, References given do not confer notability; Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT Hu12 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Minds[edit]

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

Delete reads like an essay or advertisement, but no indication why this is notable or why it matters in the real world. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just removed about 80% of the article that was a cut-and-paste job from http://www.thersa.org/projects/education/opening-minds/opening-minds-framework, which certainly has a copyright notice at the bottom. With or without that information, this doesn't meet WP:N on its own and should be selectively merged into Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce. --Glenfarclas (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zymo Research Corporation[edit]

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

No third-party WP:RS available. Seems to fail WP:CORP. Failed PROD when 1 of 2 WP:SPA editors who have contributed to this article objected. Those SPAs have a likely COI. Toddst1 (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There is were two reliable sources that I added but were deleted by someone else. The two sources are the journal Science and epigenie.com. I will work on putting epigenie back up. I would appreciate some suggestions on how to make it not seem to look like an advertisment, because I really am just putting it up to show credibility of the company (to meet wikipedias guidelines) and not advertisment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.73.26 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, those were links to a "Special Advertising Feature". Please see Wp:RS Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one: http://www.epigenie.com/Zymo_Gold.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.73.26 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good start. We should probably move this discussion about sources to talk:Zymo Research Corporation. Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for writing that post from that article, I did not read the beginning about it being an advertisement. I just was trying to help out, I will be more careful next time. I think I am going to make an account so I dont use my IP address as well. 71.177.77.82 (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP, no reliable sources to establish notability. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to find many sources that talk about Zymo Research due to Zymo being a smaller company. Zymo's products are notible as you can see: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=zymo+research&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

There will be a strong source that will be used to show the company is notible once Frost & Sullivan release this years Innovation of the Year Award in Epigenetics, since Zymo Research beat out many large companies. Unfortunately, I do not have a timeline on when the press release will be available.

WP:CORP states:

"Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations."

I think the academic papers give the company notability (almost 8,000 hits on just google scholar) for being a small organization. 74.7.73.26 (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before supplying my opinion, I searched for sources. I only turned up 90 hits on Google Scholar for "Zymo Research Corporation", and all the ones I checked were trivial mention. If I missed a scholar document (or any other document) that supplied more than trivial mention (and which wasn't advert, marketing, or other primary source material), please supply a link to a specific document, I would be happy to change my opinion if a source is found that helps establish notability. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search "Zymo Research" over the full "Zymo Research Corporation" since they generally dont go by the later. There are a lot of trivial references but generally these academic papers are not product reviews, so the small things that seem trivial are pretty significant. When I searched it just now, I opened the 2nd article on the list. It was http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WDG-4F6SSH6-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1140983592&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8b3b0e3cc361b3b3306dcffa45783bfe.

It stated: "Total RNA was isolated using the Zymo Mini RNA isolation kit, which allows for the isolation of RNA from 10³ to 10⁵ cells/sample (Zymo Research, Orange, CA)." They wanted a large amount of cells/sample, and thus chose this prodcut over the many alternatives. There are others as well. 74.7.73.26 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unexceptional as it exists now. if awards in the future (as claimed) change that we can undelete. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Women's Rugby[edit]

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

Delete no indication that this amateur team is notable in any way; fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a lot of ghits for this club. However, I don't think there is sufficiently significant independent coverage of the club to get them across the very low bar of notability for sports clubs (their website shows"press" coverage that is very limited; and there is little more to be found by doing a search). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep Lou here, the creator of the page. Carlos and Mkat, do you have any suggestions for changes so that it would pass GNG? BubonicLou (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.C. Carmichael[edit]

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

Delete unreferenced BLP for a barely notable or non-notable person. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have to go further than just mentioning the dearth of references offered; there seems to be nothing to connect this person with any of the projects mentioned. And, not that I have ever watched more than a few minutes of either of the two shows I am about to mention, but if this actor was born in 1989 and has appeared in five seasons of Grey's Anatomy, then he would have been fifteen (or so) during the first season, which seems remarkably "Doogie Hawser-ish". I'd go with hoax here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is, if you Google hard enough and long enough, a spoof of Gray's Anatomy on Youtube that bears some resemblance on a few points (names and characters) to one of the assertions in the article, but really, this is a speedy. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he were as prominent an actor as the article claims he is, he would have at least a listing on the Internet Movie Database. He doesn't. This article is a hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax? I don't know. We cannot keep unreferenced BLP articles around. JBsupreme (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. Even a minute or two of searching clearly shows that although there is a J.C. Carmichael from Cincinnati, he has no connection whatsoever to any of the things the article claims. Lionsgate hasn't even produced a film called "The Take," and although an Ava Marie Carmichael has done costume work on two of the three films called Float ([88] and [89]), there's no other Carmichael. Wishful thinking or jealousy over a more successful sister (she's hot, BTW)? We'll never know. --Glenfarclas (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nabibakhsh Mansoori[edit]

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

Delete unreferenced BLP of marginally notable or nn person. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is some coverage of this artist in Indian mainstream media - The Indian express, The Tribune, Business Standard, Mint, and in yahoo events, TV18 --Sodabottle (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom if not improved - but 3 paintings were sold at auction by Bonhams in London in 2000/2. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jose de la torre Gomez[edit]

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

Delete sounds like a great guy, but not notable. Almost speedy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant contribution that would make him notable. Zoo Fari 04:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not notable on any of the qualifications the article lists, and none of the information in the article is sourced or verifiable. His site Cafe El Joe doesn't even seem to be a business, more like his page on some social networking site. Agreed that this is almost a speedy. --Glenfarclas (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

El caballo del malo[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable expression. A Google search of the phrase produced a flurry of results, but not for this context - rather, a band by the same name (on whose notability I am not passing judgement). The only source cited in the article is not itself reliable, and does not cite its own sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that this is a real expression in Spanish (at least in Spain). However, delete per WP:NOTDICT. — æk ^Talk 00:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's rap[edit]

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

Delete nn youtube video; even if one magazine rated it one of the 25 funniest- are the other 24 also notable - and the local news that some teenagers were arrested for emulating the antics of the video doesn't make it notable, unless we get consider that any time someone gets arrested and points to something as their influence for their actions suddenly the influence establishes notability - then most crooks' parents are notable because nearly always somehow the parents get blamed by someone for something. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 22:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally non notable web video made no more notable by a group of idiots "performing" it in a McD's drive through. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm sure it's hilarious, but we don't have an article on every amusing YouTube video, nor should we. HJMitchell You rang? 03:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rolling Stone magazine is a reliable source and a major magazine regarding popular culture and therefore establishes the notability of this topic. Further, the incident with the teenagers in Utah achieved national prominence by numerous reliable sources including AOL News[90], MSNBC[91], Deseret News[92], CNBC[93], Associated Press[94], CNS News[95], Chicago Sun-Times[96], CBS News[97], The Boston Globe[98] and many other reliable sources [99] Given the overwhelming number of reliable sources which have covered this topic, our article clearly meets notability standards. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Rendl Symposium[edit]

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

Delete no indication that this symposium is notable, fails WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This symposium is regarding Georg Rendl, who is notable within the German wikipedia; note in the article the link to the German page. A modest amount of work in translating the German page by the people who put the work together to add this one here would add to the English Wikipedia. It deserves a WP:BETTER and not a delete.
Delete, whatever notability the person might have doesn't rub off on the symposium. Start a page for Georg Rendl if he's notable, and add this information there. Hairhorn (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Sharif Shah Sureswari[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:Verifiability, therefore WP:N. It seems that it is a clear case of WP:OR as well. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 19:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Per nom, and per WP:N, WP:V. Notability is not established through references from reliable sources. --Ragib (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Ragib (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Lou[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant independent coverage evident. All sources seem to be from artists own management/promo. Guliolopez (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1, not much use. Source 2, award nominee. --candle•wicke 05:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Source 3. --candle•wicke 06:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crux Entertainment[edit]

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

Delete advertising for a nn concert promoter, fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sikkim Manipal University Directorate of Distance Education[edit]

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

Delete nn sub-unit of a university without any explanation why this is notable apart from the university itself. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sikkim Manipal University.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the link Sikkim Manipal University is without any reliable references and even that should be deleted. Wirεłεşş▒Fidεłitұ▒Ćłâşş▒Θnε _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 16:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Sikkim Manipal University Directorate of Distance Education's notability is questionable because I have not found any secondary reliable sources that validate the primary sources material on the article. Therefore, I retain my delete call. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 20:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Alpha Upsilon[edit]

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

I restored this as a contested prod per a request at WP:REFUND, but in searching for sources to add to meet WP:Notability, I'm striking out. Gnews has 10 hits, all of which are passing mentions. The first several pages of ghits are passing mentions; gbooks has directory entries. The editor who requested the restoration at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests#Tau_Alpha_Upsilon admits that sources may not be available. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fraternity at a single college. Nothing notable asserted. When references can't be found, I consider these probably suitable for AfD A7, though coming here never hurts. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC) .[reply]

Sources are in fact available under the University web page, and under their records. (SUNY Binghamton). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.125.174.144 (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in any reliable sources. The few press items listed on their website are coverage of events the fraternity was associated with, mentioning the group itself only in passing. --RL0919 (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments to keep, and no indication that further time will result in more debate Kevin (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon King (pornographic actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline, no sourcing, no content beyond unreferenced birth/death dates and credit list Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polarhome[edit]

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

This is a non-notable and unsourced website that actually complies with the CSD criteria for web content. The only sources present in the article is a link to the home page of the website. The only sources found on google news, google books, or google scholar are the domain name of the website in the URL about other things. Polarhome is a minor webhost with a few barely notable software projects on it. It is not independently notable. Miami33139 (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Today I located 2 reliable sources which I have placed on the talk page. This is sufficient for notability. --Hm2k (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The domain name appearing in someone's essay[100] is not a source. Miami33139 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' There's nothing interesting or notable about this subject.Callivert (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Investigative leads[edit]

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

fails on wp:NOTDICTIONARY. General term, I don't think it can be expanded much further beyond stub. Mattg82 (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually this could be made into an good article, but probably not under this name (not sure where). An article about the various types of clues left behind at a crime scene, for various types of crimes, could be interesting. See Category:Forensic evidence and Forensic science. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment: Perhaps it could be merged into Crime scene ? Mattg82 (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to reply. Not sure. Possibly redirect, but investigative leads could be more than just clues at the scene. For example, in case of a murder, the investigator looks for a motive, and interviews people who knew the victim. There are existing articles on Crime reconstruction, Trace evidence, and Forensic science, the latter of which has a nice infobox on various articles leading to criminal investigations. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing worth salvaging, a mini essay. Sussexonian (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TEOCO[edit]

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

non notable software company WuhWuzDat 16:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The references supplied that are independent are trade publications with tiny audiences. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete average company doing average things. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - or maybe Baleeted. Wizardman 22:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homestar Bank[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. To put this in perspective, the bank says it has assets of more than $465 million - small by comparison to some banks, but still rather more than the personal net worth of most Wikipedia editors. - Eastmain (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim or evidence of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. (To put it in perspective: Oprah Winfrey personally is worth five times as much as this bank's total assets.) --Closeapple (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete average company doing average things. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Conveys an Emotion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I fail to see the notability here. While the site was nominated for a Webby award, it did not win the award. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was unsure about this one, but it seems the site was something of a fad in the early 2000s, as one would expect from the Webby nomination. This is before the start of many of the online archives searched by Google News, but there's a fair amount of coverage in LexisNexis, even after one ignores the "websites of the week" type of article. EALacey (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Patranella[edit]

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

Not notable. Creating Cotton Patch Café is a claim to notability because the company is notable. This article contains no other claims to notability and I do not believe passes the criteria to exist seperately. SGGH ^ping! 15:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything significant about this person to establish notability. Article created by someone with an apparent conflict of interest. noq (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late-twentieth century commodity prices[edit]

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

This page started with a garbled partial copy from a news article and has not progressed since. Various editors have had a hand in it, but it has not improved since its inception in 2005, and probably never will since it is a dead end. The links to the page are all insubstantial (try and follow them back) and it is, to all intents and purposes, an orphan. I cannot envisage anyone actually looking for this article (I got it as a Random article) and there does not appear to be any information here worth saving that is not already covered elsewhere. Emeraude (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - a random small piece of statistics and without any encyclopedic discusiion. WP is not a non-discriminate collection of information. - Altenmann >t 23:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There might be room for a discussion of trends in Commodities during a particular decade (as with the general article 2000s in economics, for example), but this particular topic is too narrow for a meaningful article. This ignores the fact that the article is malformed, unresearched, unsourced, and in dire need of significant work. Even if the topic is notable, it would be better to start over with a clean slate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neehar Raina[edit]

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

Declined A7 nominee, fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slam dunk Keep 1. Any winner of the Aga Khan Award for Architecture is automatically notable - it's a big deal. 2. There's controversy, and an interesting back story over the award [101]. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The major award meets WP:BIO. Them From Space 10:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Roman Polanski petition[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Free Roman Polanski petition

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

Weakly cited, The article is not a BLP but all the people on the list are living people Off2riorob (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A petition signed by famous people is not notable. Reywas92^Talk 03:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the rush. Why is this posted moments after asking for sources on a BLPN ... and I said I was looking? [~http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-petition Start here at the Guardian] Proofreader77 (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of news mentions of the petition. NYT Op ed mentions it ... It's a notable petition. Still looking. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notable petition (well covered by media) ... (including someone removing their name, notably, I believe) ... Will also be notable for Wikipedia leaping to delete it. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emma Thompson notably removed her name from it. Remember? Hmmm ... Maybe this can be raised to WP:FA. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday season ... Will turn into article later. (I need to do some article creation anyway.) I assure you this petition is notable - oft-mentioned in the media. A symbol in the "cultural divide." Polanski is a big story. Those who support him are reviled for it. That is notable. Thompson pressured to remove her hame is notable ... why she would be particularly susceptible to pressure on this matter ... is notable. Interesting article to come. But wouldn't have thought about it without this nomination — with fairly predictable outcome. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP, we need extra high quality sources. What I see is a plain list of names, with no other identification. Even if we assume the names are correct spelling-wise, how do we know they are the same people wiki-linked to? There are no dates of birth, or other corroborating data to confirm the ID. Therefore, BLP requires removal of the names pending positive verification. And the list, with or without the names, is a minor news item, not an encyclopedia article. Crum375 (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The petition itself may, and I stress may be notable, but there is zero confirmation that the individuals who have "signed" it are who they purport to be - that's the BLP issue. Strip out the names and what's left? "There is an online petition signed by some people who may or may not be who they say they are." ukexpat (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a classic case of WP:SOAP. Our "article" is not about the petition, it is the petition, and appears to be here for the purpose of casting shame on the signatories. I think they should be ashamed, but that's not what Wikipedia is about. Perhaps this can be replaced by a properly sourced article that goes in-depth about the petition and the reaction it caused, but the current article seems close to useless for getting to that point. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Administrator making WP:SOAP/WP:NOTFORUM comment about petition, calling article WP:SOAP. Delicious, irony. But yes, there needs to be an article there ... But the removal has to do with things other than it not being up to snuff yet. Like comment above illustrates: "I think they should be ashamed of themselves." (Suggest the honorable administrator reconsider their comments on this matter and perhaps strike phrasing which may not be appropriate. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want "policy"? How about undue weight? Why does this merit more than one line in the Polanski article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion pages such as this one are appropriate places to express opinions. Wikipedia articles are not. Is that difficult to understand? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's getting whomped here, so he's grasping at any straw. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Il garbagio. The presence of Woody Allen's name renders it satirical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or, if the petition has to be kept, merge it with the article on the Polanski's sex abuse scandal. As is, the article violates the list policy. Tangurena (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advise all who participate in this AfD, remember WP:NOTFORUM. Policy rationale only.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofreader77 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 December 2009

Redirect to Roman Polanski sexual abuse case#Reactions to the arrest where the petition is already mentioned and cited. The petition is merely an aspect of the reaction to the case and does not need its own separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90. The petition is notable, and its existence and notability can be well documented in reliable sources - some of which are provided here. But the list of names is problematic, and does hint at UNDUE weight. The better course, I think, would be to expand the section of the Polanski case article dealing with overall reactions to the case in general (the petition being a prominent element of that reaction). That said, this is a reasonable search term, thought maybe without the quotes, so a redirect is not out of line. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree with Metropolitan90 above. (And UltraExactZZ after EC). Proper citations can be used to mention the petition in the proper article, but I don't see the coverage of the petition itself to justify a standalone article.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Does the petition merit a line in the encyclopedia? Yes. An article? Hardly. bd2412 T 18:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that there are more issues with the list as regards BLP issues, we can not be sure that the list is correct at all, I have found articles talking about people removing or attempting to remove thier name, of the lists that are on sources I have yet to find two of the lists that are the same, and I have not as yet seen a major publication that has actually printed the names from the list, that quality sources that I have seen have reported partial lists with the names of people from whom they have got a clear verbal comfirmation from the subject that they indeed sign the list, this list is more trouble than it is worth, and a redirect is troublesome for these reasons. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - if someone searches for the petition, and information about the petition is in the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case article (really, isn't there a better name for that one?), then it's a reasonable redirect. I don't suggest that we move the list to that article as well, quite the opposite - the list needs to go. But that doesn't mean that the fact that a petition exists is not worth mention, especially since there are multiple reliable sources that document its notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have missunderstood the redirect option, if this list is removed then I am fine with that. It is the reliability of the exact names on the list and the quality of the citations supporting the names that I find troublesome. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. To Off2riorob: yes, the list will be removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90, and others, who get it exactly right. It's worth a line in the main article; no more. TJRC (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per all above. (But may yet attempt to create WP:FA at redirect ... in the distant future. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per above. Tempted to WP:IAR and WP:SNOW close this... TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do not redirect. This is an implausible and very badly formed title, especially with the quotation marks. Reywas92^Talk 04:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is so true.. Off2riorob (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that. lol What about:

Free Roman Polanski petition
Petition to free Roman Polanski
Filmartists petition to free Roman Polanski
Free Roman Polanski (petition)

Yes, the quotes must go. So, do we move after the vote concludes, or before? Proofreader77 (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to the first one, and create the others as redirects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: moved and adjusted links to title version #1. If I shouldn't have, somebody fix it. Or tell me to. If universe implodes due to change, nice knowing you. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Proofreader, is it time to close this as redirect, it seems that way to me. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just realized ... Does the history get wiped, and a fresh start created for the redirect? (That would take an admin). Or do we just wipe the page, and leave history there. (I'm guessing we need a history-zapping bit lol, but what do I know?) Not that this is closed or anything. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless something special is done, the history stays, and just the current revision is the redirect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any cases when they wipe the history? (I'm just pondering if this is done with a non-admin, close ... can everything be done without a bit?) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaping to WP:SNOW ... already redirected. lol Anyone know how to do the template up top? :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You arcjhive this and.its available to read if required, .. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Nichols[edit]

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

No individual notability. Has worked on some video games, and was the colourist for a comic book. No third party coverage, other than a few mentions and in lists of names. Also appears to be an autobiography (the first edit set off the COI tag). Hairhorn (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles on Concept artists already exist on wikipedia, Ryan Church is a good example. While short, this article is entirely neutral and I believe the subject matter and IP mentioned do make it notable as theyre AAA titles in the comics and video gaming genres. Autaux (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it's perfectly legitimate to vote on your own article at AFD, it's probably worth pointing out that Autaux is the creator of this article. He's also presumably the subject of the article, given that Adam Nichols hosts some of his artwork at http://autaux.deviantart.com/. As for the particular arguments offered, they fall into "other stuff exists", not normally considered convincing enough to escape deletion. Articles are judged on their own merits, not on the existence of other articles. Hairhorn (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes this article is autobiographical and i am Adam aka autaux. I wrote this article believing people who were interested in the titles Ive worked on may have a little insight into who makes their games and find more similar works/titles by that artist. Usually all people get is the promotional jargon under each of the existing articles on wiki and Im hoping to give them a little more then that. Concept art is a relatively popular field and there is currently little to no info on these artists online.autaux (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTWEBHOST going away. The subject of the article amply edited in sources, but they're all to his own websites, to blogs or to indexes of names of those working on various video games. There are no reliable, independent, third-party sources substantively about the subject, as WP:RS and WP:BIO hold, and we have admitted WP:COI issues. I'd suggest to the writer that his goal of providing a venue for people to find out about him would be better served by creating his own webpage, but he's already done that. I do recommend he review WP:PILLAR for a handle on our article procedure and policies. Ravenswing 09:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive chosen to withdraw my article from this site as I fail to see this site upholding these WP:PILLAR and clearly don't really care to justify when its easier to just delete and move on. Autaux 10:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.12.116 (talk) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Motorworks[edit]

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

Unremarkable organisation, article has no content to establish notability. The company is simply an importer of a single marque of motorcycle into the USA that produces nothing. Biker Biker (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only stories in which Classic Motorworks is the subject are in Dealernews, a trade publication that is not really independent or neutral. There are mentions in several publications of a recall notice issued by Classic Motorworks, not a notable event (e.g. [102]). Here is a review of articles that mention Classic Motorworks:
- Review of motorcycle, barely mentions Classic Motorworks. Enfield Bullet bike creates fun; [2 Edition] John Godfrey. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.: Aug 25, 2000. pg. E.17
- Profile of a dealerhship in Santa Fe, and some history of Royal Enfield. Mentions Classic Motorworks only in passing. Bullets Find Their Target Audience, Jennifer McKee Journal Staff Writer, Albuquerque Journal ( Albuquerque, N.M. ), 2000-07-31, 3
- Story about new retro bikes. Classic Motorworks manager mentioned as source for quote about Royal Enfield bikes. Retro-bikes gain ground; Names like Indian, Triumph and Royal Enfield are taking a page from Harley's classic playbook August 28, 2003, Les Christie, CNN/Money.com
- Dealernews is a quasi-independent trade publication. Has outline of Classic Motorworks, 100 dealerships, 500 units sold per year, headquarters in Minnesota, warehouse in Norfolk, $600k in parts on hand. Royal Enfield Importer Jumps Into Multi-Faceted Expansion Anonymous, Dealernews (Cleveland), 2008-1244:12, 20 (1 pages)
- Reviews (only) positive features of bikes, history of Royal Enfield. Some quotes from a Classic Motorworks manager. Royal Enfield: With a bullet, Anonymous, Dealernews (Cleveland), 2003, 92 (2 pages)
- Passing mention of Classic Motorworks. TVS Motor to roll out Apache in US The Economic Times, 16 Jun 2009, Chanchal Pal Chauhan, ET Bureau
- Article about one Greg Stewart, who is selling is scooter shop to take a job at Classic Motorworks headquarters. ScooterBob shifts into corporate gear December 4, 2008, Sunday Gazette-Mail, Rusty Marks
- Story about trip on Enfield Bullet, with passing mention that Classic Motorworks supplied the bike. High Adventure; Border to Border on 22 Horsepower Grant Parsons, American Motorcyclist, March 2003, p. 47. There are also two other hits for Classic Motorworks in American Motorcyclist because they are listed in the Advertiser Index.
- Press release
  --Dbratland (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Deletion[edit]

I have created this page as this company is a real existing company and I have also provided enough links to support it.I want reply of the deleter on my discussion page. User:st ttb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.13.8 (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not sufficient that the company is real. There need to be reliable sources that show the company meets the notability criteria described in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you can add citations to the article that show it does, then it can be saved. --Dbratland (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought this was really iffy when I edited it last week (originally it called the company "the American subsidiary of Royal Enfield" and made it sound like this company manufactured the motorcycles). Look further, I fully agree with the nom and Dbratland (good work) that this dealer is not notable. The article itself says nothing that would point to notability. --Glenfarclas (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete average company doing average things. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus (instant messaging client)[edit]

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

This non-notable article has no sources. It needs them. Miami33139 (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete -no evidence of notability provided. - Altenmann >t 23:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep it is the first Jabber/XMPP client, created by Peter Millard (creator of Jabber/XMPP protocol), and always used. — Neustradamus (✉) 08:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources? - Altenmann >t 04:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://code.google.com/p/exodus/ ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Millard ; http://xmpp.org/software/clients.shtml ; https://stpeter.im/index.php/2006/04/27/peter-millard/ more ? — Neustradamus (✉) 02:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have taken into consideration the external links provided by Neustradamus, but none of them qualify as non-trivial coverage from a reliable third party publication. Subject does not yet appear to be notable. JBsupreme (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. closing, clearly lacking sourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twin (windowing system)[edit]

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

This is non-notable and unsourced software. I have declined to use PROD on this article because it contains one external source. One source does not show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability in this case is very subjective, and hard to evaluate. It is better to err on the side of a bit of additional data than to just delete it. 173.15.213.186 (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of sources is easy to evaluate. That completely fails our verification policy. Miami33139 (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are 3 external links, and two of them are authoritative and very verifiable. An article in a similar condition (notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, but without copious amounts of external sources but those that are present are easily verified and authoritative) is the article on the Syllable operating system. Michael B. Trausch • Talk to me 16:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly feeble keep. (!voting neutral seemed too lame in an AfD) The only WP:SECONDARY source is that Brave GNU World issue, which is tethering on self-published, although the column was republished in print (see Georg C. F. Greve). There's virtually no other commentary about twin anywhere, except this blog. Pcap ping 16:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, the sources don't seem to hold up to me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar (film)[edit]

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

Obvious hoax. It is impossible to know that much about a movie a year and a half away. I cannot find any sources about this. Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability - and it does read like a hoax. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. IMDB says it is in development, and while IMDB isn't the greatest source, Wikipedia:FUTFILM#Notability notes it as a rule of thumb and there's nothing else to go on even though the film supposedly involves several A-listers. Liqudluck✽talk 07:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The IMDb says absolutely nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if the same person who added linked to all the supposed actors' articles created that IMDb page. Where are its sources? Reywas92^Talk 04:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF. Fine to re-create once it meets the criteria. Lugnuts (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation once WP:NF can be properly met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Skillicorn[edit]

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

Amateur racing driver, fails WP:ATHLETE. No Third party coverage. Drdisque (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drdisque. Those two images are also potential PUF noms. Zoo Fari 04:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lezak's Recurring Cycle (LRC)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lezak's Recurring Cycle (LRC)

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

Non-notable theory by a TV weatherman. Google Scholar shows one withdrawn paper. I can't find any verifiable information; most of it emanates from his TV station or LRC Weather, LLC. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can find no independent coverage, only blogs/message board posts and most google hits are by Lezak himself. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 05:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE Many meteorologists have now caught to to this technique and are using. Some stations as far north as Wisconsin, and they have explained it. More coverage on the LRC -XenoDiagNostics^(talk) 06:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, however we could use some sources to prove that this is notable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable third-party sources. Article created far too early; if this turns out to be notable, let's wait until it is covered in secondary sources and re-create the article then. — Miym (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mari Karsikas[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The article suits here very well. Furthermore, also the Finnish and Swedish Wikipedias have the same article. --Finrus (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
An article, which is not notable. --Finrus (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Has just been proposed for speedy deletion in both Finnish and Swedish Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

By the same person aswell, without any "comment".. Speedy deletion removed on swedish, and replaced with relevance-check Evalowyn (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hmm... We are in desperate need of someone who knows Finnish. All refs are in Finnish, and google doesn't give me much else. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know Finnish and can verify the refs are correct. I can't say anything about Karsikas's notability yet though. The Finnish article has been nominated for deletion, but no one has actually created the nomination page, so there is no discussion so far. JIP | Talk 18:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references are 1) thesis (Master level) 2&3) "bulk" appoitment news (not editorial news, texts are sent by companies to newspapers). She has worked as journalist before in one of the largest newspapers in Finland and is now working as a editorial director (not editor-in-chief/executive editor) in a monthly lifestyle/women's magazine. She's not public person in Finland. I cannot see how this could be notable. --Harriv (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Try becoming chief editor first. Geschichte (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for not having any significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, per the analysis of Harriv. She has never held a position that would give her right to claim inherent notability either. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no sources = no article Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Snegoff[edit]

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

Mostly trivial roles, original research, no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The roles asserted for Robotech and Gogol 13 are major roles. What this article needs is sources to back those assertions. Edward321 (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelie[edit]

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

The intro of this article is a definition of the word wheelie, which is at Wiktionary already. The remainder of the article is a how-to on wheelies, which I've copied over to Wikibooks: [103]. Thus, there is nothing encyclopedic here.--Dbratland (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Sports-related deletions and Game-related deletions. --Closeapple (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article content is currently a 'how-to', but unless there is another article describing this maneuver I don't agree the page should be deleted. Instead, it should be cleaned up. Good work to new editor Special:Contributions/128.205.15.127 Fancy steve (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge from Stoppie. Looks like Stoppie is written more the way Wheelie should be; if the lengthy how-to is removed/summarized and the two are merged there should be enough to salvage. I would normally say "merge to Stoppie" for an article like this, but "Wheelie" is the more general article. --Closeapple (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what part of Wheelie should be kept? All of Wheelie is definition and a how-to. Not that Stoppie looks like much more than a definition of the word followed by a terse but well-illustrated how-to, which should also probably be moved to Wikibooks. To me this looks like trying to create an encyclopedic aritcle by merging two non-encyclopedic articles together and hoping nobody notices the content belongs elsewhere. --Dbratland (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Wheelie#Bicycle wheelie, keeping only the first sentence from each paragraph and only the first three sentences from Wheelie#Safety would seem to do the trick. The rest would be OK with some more clean-up. --Closeapple (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe Wheelie, Stoppie, and Motorcycle stunt riding could be merged into "Cycle stunt riding"; I tried to find an article like that to begin with, but couldn't — the current articles seem to concentrate on either bicycles or motorcycles, but not the stunts common between them. Artistic cycling and Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics are closely related but stunt riding seems slightly out of scope for those. Should someone be bold? I think "cycle stunt riding" would be an encyclopedic topic, but the title seems awkward. --Closeapple (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I relent. The recently added section on history looks weak, but sources exist: [104], [105], [106]. Doug Domokos probably deserves his own page. The how-to stuff defnitely needs to go, whether Wikibooks will accept it or not. I would argue also that pages that attempt to cover both motorcycles and bicycles together tend to create more problems than they solve, fwiw. --Dbratland (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it seems that merging motorcycle-specific stuff in would be a bit ugly. My current brainstorm: Dump the how-to, of course. Merge Wheelie, Stoppie, and any other non-motor-specific maneuvers into "Stunt cycling". (I was trying to find a less awkward term than "Cycle stunt riding".) Motorcycle stunt riding stays its own article as Dbratland mentioned; probably merge Stunters up into Motorcycle stunt riding, but maybe that's for a different discussion. I mention Stunters because there might be a little bit of content that can merge up into Stunt cycling instead. If "stunt cycling" sounds like asking for trouble, maybe use "Bicycle stunt riding" for symmetry with Motorcycle stunt riding — but it seems that wheelies and stoppies are common to both. --Closeapple (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this seems like a perfect case to keep bicycling and motorcycling in two articles- like the bicycle/motorcycle stunt riding. After all, the similarities are few. It might be worth a sentence in each pointing to the other, but otherwise? I'm still torn on the outcome of this deletion unless the content is filtered into Bicycle stunt riding and Motorcycle stunt riding. tedder (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to be bold and merge Stunters into Motorcycle stunt riding — it needs a lot of cleanup. In relation to the current AfD: Motorcycle stunt riding#Common stunts contains a lot of stunts, including various forms of wheelie, that seem to be common to bicycles and motorcycles. If the bicycle-only article is created, some of that information will probably be useful (once backed up with reliable sources). --Closeapple (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.superstreetbike.com/streets/0703_sbkp_history_of_stunting/index.html is a source for the soldiers pictured in life magazine. I'm very new to Wikipedia and I couldn't add it as a citation. I'm Special:Contributions/128.205.15.127 and I apoligize in advance if I am not following proper procedure. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.190.149 (talk • contribs)
Keep, as editorial and merging work seems to be underway, and wheelies have sufficient sourcing for their own article. Look in the Google Scholar results; there are enough references to wheelies in wheelchairs alone to justify an article. Abductive (reasoning) 18:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have made the article more encyclopedic by adding facts and greatly reducing the size of the tutorial portion. I also added a small portion on gyroscopic stabilization. The original article was poorly written, but I intend to slowly improve it as I come up with information reasonable and relevant to be part of an encyclopedia. I think the video should be replaced with a better example, as there are many out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.15.206 (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've added various things under two or three different IP addresses. That's nice as far as it goes, but you aren't citing sources, and much of what you've written looks like original research and opinion. You should expect to see edits like that deleted unless you can cite sources for it, and the uncited material doesn't do much to build a case to keep the article. It only muddies the water for those looking for something worth keeping. --Dbratland (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of my edits are grammar and word choice corrections to clarify the concepts, as well as trimming the tutorial as suggested by many above. The rest is just logic and simple physics. I'm new to Wikipedia so perhaps you could provide me with an example of how anything I have written is original research or opinion. The history paragraph could have 3 citations, but I cant add the third. I wrote it in earlier on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.15.206 (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to discuss this is Talk:Wheelie rather than here. But briefly, your "logic and simple physics" goes far beyond simple deductions, and you should find sources before adding these edits. If these ideas are as obvious as you say, then sources should be commonplace. Please do not replace the deleted tutorial and how-to advice. Instead, edit How to wheelie.--Dbratland (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only with properly sourced additions. I just reverted a bunch of stuff by the aforementioned (and undoubtedly well intentioned) IP editor as it wasn't properly sourced. I did just add some info about legality - UK police and courts take a tough line on wheelies and will prosecute. I think this is relevant information. It would be good to expand the article with information about legality in other countries. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no sources = no article and there is consensus that ENT is not met Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Ashworth[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. I can't find any evidence of significant coverage or a significant acting career. [107]. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going argue for a keep. Appears to be notable as she has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Gosox5555 (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which roles have been significant? LibStar (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm sorry, Gosox, I don't see it. She has exactly six credits on IMDB, the most recent over two years ago. Two are for single eps of two separate TV series. One is a very minor role in a TV movie. The next TV movie she appeared in she was 55th in credits order. She's had, to date, one decent role in a wide release, but a single significant role isn't enough to pass the criterion. Ravenswing 09:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that this article was created by a user called "Showbizinfo" who has only edited pages to discuss Brittany Ashworth, and that Showbizinfo knows Brittany's school grades, tells me that . . . . Well, never mind. Ravenswing is right about the evaluation of her place in showbiz. These just don't seem to be "significant roles in multiple notable" productions. --Glenfarclas (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not matter one whit that she has paused her career to concentrate on school (bless her). That she has significant roles in two notable films meets WP:ENT. The improvement of the article calls for normal editing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per User:Ravenswing, all but one role is extremely minor, and thus doesn't quite meet WP:ENT (which requires multiple significant roles, not multiple roles in significant films). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin A. Miller[edit]

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

Non-notable local county commissioner. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a little tough to search Google for someone named Ben Miller, but my efforts haven't turned up anything that would meet WP:BIO. --Glenfarclas (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately not seeing enough secondary source coverage. Cirt (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otis Stucker[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player/manager Alex (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BASE/N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Only cited reference for minor league player/manager is statistics. BRMo (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough exists on this person to make article worthwhile. Spanneraol (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sodders[edit]

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet notability criteria for minor league baseball players per WP:BASE/N. BRMo (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Raven[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't quite see how he is notable enough to merit a page. His statistics haven't been updated since 2006. Alex (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that he played professionally or that he is notable for other reasons. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that he played professionally is made explicitly clear in the article, however it is unknown whether the professional levels he played at merit an article for him. Alex (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This guy played four seasons of AAA baseball, which is certainly "fully professional." That being said, the article asserts that he plays in the Venezuelan league, which is the highest professional league in that nation; that's a prima facie pass for WP:ATHLETE. RGTraynor 09:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per RGT.. but someone really needs to add some sources to this article.. Gosh Alex, you have been busy. Can't you let some of these afds finish before adding more.. it's hard to keep up. Spanneraol (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Venezuelan League is certainly professional and as far as I know AAA is considered professional by WP:MLB as well.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Span and Giants.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RGTtraynor. Rlendog (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Quezada[edit]

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

Was on 40-man roster. The debate rages whether or not that determines notability. Some say yes, others say no. Alex (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the policy for minor-league baseball players? I think either they all should articles or none should. --P Carn (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did he play in a major-league game? If so, yes he's notable; if not, the only way he's notable is if he passes general notability, because minor leaguers aren't notable by dint of being minor leaguers. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Contrary to the opinion of some, there's nothing in WP:ATHLETE debarring minor leaguers; the turn of phrase is "fully professional league," not "highest possible professional league." That being said, this fellow never passed beyond single-A ball and sat out the whole 2009 season. Regardless of the odds of him getting any further than the lowest rungs of the minor leagues, he just hasn't done so. The article can be recreated if he does. RGTraynor 09:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick google search turned up lots of articles about this guy. Apparently he was a promising prospect who spent 2009 on the DL... He should sign with a new team soon and then we can merge it but no reason to delete. Spanneraol (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Spanneraol, numerous google hits. Once he signs with a team a merger can be discussed.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that he was non-tendered after going no higher than Class A and spending a year on the DL suggests he's no longer much of a prospect. Number of Google hits is not a good indicator of whether there's enough reliable source material to support an article. BRMo (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Giants and Span.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BRMo et al. Just because someone has hits on google does not automaticaly establish notability. Wizardman 15:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cracks in the Sidewalk[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Interesting to note that the creator's User page redirects to the article. Mattg82 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough P Carn (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MikeWazowski took the words from my fingertips. JBsupreme (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any in-depth coverage; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 16:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hanson Logistics[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:ORG. All listed refs are either from the local paper or industry-only publications. —Chowbok ☠ 00:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say that the coverage listed under Notes and Notable Press adds up to enough to pass the general notability guideline. Local media and industry publications are generally reliable, and often do a better job covering specialized or local topics than the national media. - Eastmain (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources like Supply & Demand Chain Executive, Food Logistics, and Pacific Shipper sound like media of limited interest and circulation to me. They may be reliable, they may be independent, but they aren't read by many people outside the trades they serve, and as such are no more useful to establish notability than coverage by a hometown newspaper is. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete average company doing average things. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LeanLogistics[edit]

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

Small company, all coverage listed is either from small local sources or press releases. Fails WP:ORG. —Chowbok ☠ 00:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the article weren't set up very well, which could have led to them being overlooked. In fact, the company has attracted coverage from a variety of publications, including one (Logistics Quarterly) published in Toronto. The acquisition of the company by an Australian-based firm was covered by Orlando Business Journal, which is interesting since LeanLogistics is based in Michigan. In this case, the references taken together seem to add up to notability. Still, there is something about this article (and others created by the same editor), which doesn't quite feel right. - Eastmain (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.
Delete. It takes some rather unusual circumstances to make a behind the scenes business like this notable. Logistics Quarterly would appear to be fairly obviously a publication of "limited interest and circulation", and as such not enough to confer notability, In addition, this is obvious advertising: Unlike traditional installed software, LeanLogistics helped pioneer transportation management systems delivered on a single hosted platform..... helping reduce empty miles with network-wide visibility into available capacity for matching supply and demand..... Spend Management to control costs and increase savings for customers by employing the right carriers, correct payments and network benchmark data to ensure proper solutions are implements. The Path to Value is another "best practice" of LeanLogistics, a customized program to improve business performance at a low risk by benchmarking customer's processes and performances and tailoring specific programs to improve business where needed. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete average company doing average things. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeny Moskalev[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best, a BLP1E case. Apart from the vodka pill coverage, I could not find anything about him. Nothing relevant in Googlebooks and Googlescholar. Passes neither WP:BIO nor WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As there are no findings of notability in GS or eslewhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cottage Home[edit]

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

Tiny homebuilding company in western Michigan. All coverage is trivial. Fails WP:ORG. —Chowbok ☠ 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides what you already said, the article is rather spammy. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.
Keep. I eliminated some material that seemed unnecessary, formatted references properly, and added one. I think notability is shown now. - Eastmain (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A general search returns very few reliable source references, and mostly the typical directory site listings found for any business. I reviewed the newly included references, and even with those added I do not believe that the article meets notability standards. One of the articles is from a relatively small newspaper, another references an award given to the company by a local chamber of commerce, and the third contains a passing reference to the company but is not about the company. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence to support a claim to notability in accordance with WP:CORP, only routine news reports which do not provide anythink near the level significant coverage that would suggest this company has generated any interest beyond advertising of its serivices and products. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 analyzing the discussion, it seems to me that consensus is towards deleting this article per WP:NOTNEWS. NW (Talk) 03:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecution of a dog in Federal Republic of Germany[edit]

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

This seems to fall foul of the WP:NOTNEWS policy. While the event received news coverage it does not constitute an encyclopaedic topic in itself or illustrate one that I can think of. The title is inaccurate too as it was the owner, not the dog, prosecuted. DanielRigal (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As I said in the talk page: The article is very important. It shows the extreme oddness of current laws of Federal Republic of Germany. It should remain in Wikipedia.--Veteran Soldier (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom andy (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All three of the sources say that it was the owner, and not the dog, that was charged. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 00:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably could be listed as an example under Strafgesetzbuch § 86a, but not notable enough to have its own article.—Chowbok ☠ 00:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above reasons. fetchcomms☛ 01:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: but perhaps deserves a mention elsewhere as stated by Chowbok. Mattg82 (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources say that the dog was prosecuted, only the owner. Interesting quote: "He was planning to have the animal put down on the anniversary of Hitler's suicide." P Carn (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. While clearly it's wrong to say that the case involved "prosecution of a dog", it's also clear that the case received substantial press attention, even outside of Germany; I remember reading about it at the time. Everyking (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chowbok, in Strafgesetzbuch § 86a. --Cyclopia ^talk 03:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#NEWS. ~~Might just warrant mention in Strafgesetzbuch § 86a.~~ --Boson (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this now appears to be a normal case of insulting behaviour and illegal use of Nazi symbols by a man who also trained his dog to hold its paw in the air, I don't think it warrants a mention anywhere. --Boson (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Strafgesetzbuch § 86a --Brunk500 (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ugh. We're not a newspaper. JBsupreme (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three-line article, and half of it, including the title, is not in the sources provided. If there really were a prosecution against the dog, the case might be mildly interesting, but as it is, it is just a routine criminal case against a person. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the purpose for this article being here is that "It shows the extreme oddness of current laws of Federal Republic of Germany", all I can say is that the author has drawn the wrong conclusions. As others have pointed out, the dog wasn't criminally prosecuted, its owner was. There are extremely odd laws, in the United States and the United Kingdom, that permit the owner of a dog to be criminally prosecuted for various offenses, ranging from conducting a dog fight at one end of the spectrum, to (at the other end of the spectrum and of the dog) letting your dog crap on someone else's grass. "Adolf the Nazi Dog" is worth a mention in an article about German laws against Nazi symbolism. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article should be to give facts about its topic (which in this case is one minor incident so not notable), not to show something about something else. Mention this case in an article about the oddness of German laws and/or one about anti-Nazi laws (a truly WP:Notable and important topic.)Borock (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I added a line in the Strafgesetzbuch § 86a article with with the relevant citations. Tangurena (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the law article. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it received news coverage, not continued as an Encyclopedic topic.--WIMYV? (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Strafgesetzbuch § 86a article; this piece of trivia merely goes to illustrate the lengths to which the Bundesrepublik will go to purge and cleanse any historical association with Nazism from contemporary society.Cdtew (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important notes[edit]

I see from the above comments that most users think that the German court actually didn't prosecute the dog. Well, you are all wrong. Take a look at the following text from the Sun: Performing a Nazi salute is illegal in Germany - but Roland boasted of his pet's talent, even to police.

Adolf is now at an animal shelter while his owner spends five months in a Berlin jail. Staff are attempting to retrain the dog to do a shake-a-paw movement instead of the salute.

They have put a dog in a rehabilitation center to train him to not perform a Hitler salute! It means that they have jailed a dog for raising his hand. And actually they have prosecuted the dog, not only the owner. The owner's guilt was that his dog has performed Hitler salute. The incident was so odd that it attracted a huge amount of media coverage. Usually more than enough for a Wikipedia article. It showed the extreme oddness of German laws regarding anti-National Socialist things.

It was not just a NORMAL criminal procedure. This article should remain in Wikipedia.Veteran Soldier (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your concerns, there are two serious problems. First, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so an article is not kept or deleted only because it helps or doesn't help a cause. Second, The Sun is a tabloid and as such is not a really reliable source. If there is media coverage, as you say, please find some serious newspaper reporting the thing, and we can start consider it seriously. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will find more media coverage if you want. But who says The Sun is a tabloid and as such is not a really reliable source?--Veteran Soldier (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, have you ever attempted to read it? It is notorious for its fabricated stories. Anyway, you can ask opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard if you're not convinced. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read German, then read this article which closely confirms what The Sun says. The interesting thing in that page which does not need German knowledge is a set of pictures of various people like Merkel, Rumsfeld, Berlusconi ... who have raised their hands just like a Hitler salute. This article (which is being discussed for deletion) shows the ultimate oddness and stupidity of German laws to put someone in jail for raising his arm (or even his dog's arm). And I tell you, the amount of censorship (like Internet filtering etc...) and restriction of free speech, regarding the contents related to the former regime of Germany in Federal Republic of Germany is even higher than the most notorious dictatorship regimes of the world like North Korea.--Veteran Soldier (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of laws restricting speech either, but again, this is not the place to do politics. What we care is not if there is censorship or not, or what else. We care if the subject is worth an entry in encyclopedia or not. I don't know German but the article doesn't seem to come from a reliable source of some kind. Find some official news source, please. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the reasons of importance of this article. I don't really care if you are interested in politics (or whatever else) or not! Search the google yourself and you will find tones of information regarding this article. I no longer fight for it!--Veteran Soldier (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[This] might be slightly more reliable. You will note that, according to that article, the dog was not prosecuted and that the man (allegedly with diminished responsibility due to brain damage) received a suspended sentence for his own actions. --Boson (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC). It appears he later went to prison when he repeated simlar offences (but no reliable mention of the dog).--Boson (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted please start a section in Strafgesetzbuch § 86a. It will find more interested readers there. (As an American I am for freedom of speech but I can well understand why the Germans passed these laws. Since they are laws they need to be enforced for all people equally, and maybe even dogs too. :-) )Borock (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a line in that page with the 2 decent links from that article. Tangurena (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was removed very quickly. That article has a fairly long paragraph on the case of a leftist who was prosecuted for displaying a crossed-out swastika. I don't see why that should be allowed and not the dog. Borock (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case in question established a legal precedent that crossed out symbols were permitted when used in an explicitly anti-Nazi context and changed the implementation of the law. Obviously such a case is far more important when talking about a law than a mere example of its implementation, which is what this is (at best). There is no precedent being set here. That said, I personally don't have an objection to it being used, very briefly, as an example in the article. I think maybe it got taken out because it was poorly placed within the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To make a few obvious points arising from the above:

Dogs do not have arms to raise. They have legs.
Dogs are not jailed. They are impounded. A dog pound is not a "rehabilitation centre" or a jail. Impounding a dog is not a legal action of any sort against the dog. It may be a consequence of a legal action against the owner.
If somebody is imprisoned then it is plausible that their dog might be impounded just because there is nobody else to look after it. If somebody is known to be planning to harm their dog then it is likely that the dog will be confiscated for its protection. There is every reason to expect that the dog might have been impounded irrespective of being trained to mimic the Nazi salute.
If a dog is to be rehomed then it is likely that the dog pound will try to minimise its bad habits to make this easier. No sane person in Germany wants a dog that mimics the Nazi salute and it can be assumed that the dog pound don't want to have to look after it forever.

There really is very little odd about this story apart from the dog owner's behaviour. Everything else seems like normal process. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment, I fully understand your concerns and also the heavy amount of propaganda regarding the negative face of National Socialism which has effected most citizens of American and European countries. But when a government sends a dog to a dog pound (or whatever you call it) to train the animal to not raise his arm/leg/paw which might resemble a Hitler Salute, if you watch the incident without being affected by propaganda, it looks very odd.--Veteran Soldier (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you are trying to bend the facts to fit your ideology. That is unacceptable on Wikipedia. We are not here to debate politics or to help you in your strange quest to rehabilitate Nazism one dog at a time. We are writing an encyclopaedia here. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, your answer is what exactly I mentioned above about the effects of heavy propaganda. Accusation of everyone who talks about National Socialism of being an evil!--Veteran Soldier (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I would add that accusing another editor of trying to "rehabilitate Nazism" is ugly talk that is even more unacceptable on Wikipedia, see WP:CIVIL. While I may not agree with Vet about the need for a separate article about this matter, I fully respect his argument concerning notability. Let's all try to keep perspective here. Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran Soldier has been quite open about his agenda, which is to use this article to discredit the German laws against Nazi symbols and propaganda. I appreciate that a phrase like "rehabilitate Nazism" is often flung around in ad hominem attack but it was certainly not my intention to accuse him of anything he had not already admitted to in the comments above. I apologise if I got it wrong or went too far. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unusual event outside of what NOTNEWS is meant to cover. BBC and other major news covered it. The article can be written neutrally. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Are you sure about this? If so, what do you see it as the actual core notable element of the event? I can't seem to latch on to anything substantial. Maybe if the prosecution had gone ahead, there would have been something, but as it was merely considered and the guy eventually ended up in prison for other stuff it seems to lack a core subject. Bear in mind that even RS sources do cover a lot of trivia, particularly when it is an animal story. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lemma ist false. It ist not possible by law to prosecute animals in Germany. Only the dog's owner was prosecuted - and in the first place due to various offences of use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations with no connection to the dog and Defamation. When the case was brought to court he was on probation already for similar offences. The owner finally had to go to jail in 2007. The incident with the dog already occured in 2003. See the articels of the reputable german newspaper Die Welt: [108], [109], [110]. When somebody has to go to jail in Germany, his pet ist taken to an animal shelter if no friend or relative of the offender ist willing or able to take care of the pet - this is what happened here, it was no "punishment" for the dog.--Berlin-Jurist (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key question is whether the incident is notable, and the erroneous interpretation of the incident in the article and its title is confusing the issue. People should consider first and foremost that this incident received international news coverage. Everyking (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this report is actually true, can't it just be merged to animal trial--Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)?[reply]

If it really was a genuine animal trial then I would agree but it isn't actually anything of the sort. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything could be considered as notable, then it is the fact, that a newspaper provides misleading information and as a result, people start - falsewise - to believe, that an animal trial could have taken place in Germany.

The first sentence of the article is entirely false ("A court in Federal Republic of Germany in 2007, prosecuted a dog, named Adolf and his owner for raising his arm like a Hitler salute.") The dog was not prosecuted at all and not even the owner was prosecuted for this incident (the charges regarding this incident were dropped, the owner was jailed for other incidents of use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations, see the BBC).--Berlin-Jurist (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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