< 23 December	25 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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party[edit]

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

This cites no secondary sources, only self-published sources and other Wikipedia articles. Unless there's evidence of significant coverage of reliable sources (which Google doesn't seem to show, at least in English), this doesn't pass the notability criteria. Spellcast (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself concedes that "It is not a significant force in Japanese politics." Lacking third party sources it appears to be just another crazy fringe party. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support keeping this article if somebody can verify the claims that they make on their website; most notably, claiming to have occupied the US Embassy in 1999 and raised Nazi flags there. That would put them on level with the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement who occupied the Japanese embassy in Peru in 1996. I cannot read Japanese and am simply using Google Translate to navigate around their site; I can't find any evidence of the US Embassy being occupied in 1999 by them or any other group but if such information is available in Japanese, I wouldn't be able to find it. Please help if you can. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click here for the link to that page. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a quick look in the Japan Times website doesn't show anything, not to mention that you would think that it would have appeared in US papers too. Their website hardly counts as a source. Mangoe (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sounds like a micro-party with flimsy sources and no representation or secondary sources, although I'll be happy to retract that if they can be shown to exist in Japanese. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:57, 28 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey jay[edit]

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

Apparantly autobiographical article of artist with only a blog and mixtapes and no published albums. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe even A7 speedy - the only claim of notability is "internet attention" on YouTube, but there are no sources for this that I could find and the claim appears to be an outright exaggeration[1]. The blog isn't notable either; just another new musician wanting a Wikipedia page before actually doing something notable in the field. --Zvn (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His only claims to "fame" are making a mixtape (hell, I've done that), having a blog, and posting a YouTube video (with a piddling 617 views when I checked. And actually calling it a video is pushing it; it's one of those music-over-a-still-image things). In other words, nothing of note. — Gwalla | Talk 23:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another kid youtuber and blogger. Has anyone noticed? Cite if so. Mangoe (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:58, 28 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, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Dillon[edit]

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

Non-Notable YouTube user a couple of mentions in a newspaper dose not pass Wikipedia:N. Also on suggestion of other user. Kyle1278 23:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the most fervent deletionists on the project created this article, so I can't imagine the subject isn't notable.--Milowent (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the two decent sources cited in the article, there is this article from the Daily Mirror, and this one from RTÉ.--Michig (talk) 07:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - once again, too few reliable news sources (see [2]) to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So what's wrong with the independent reliable sources cited in the article and found by Michig? The fact that they are not indexed by Google News doesn't subtract anything from their reliability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I'm generally skeptical about Youtubers, but there does seem to be enough non-trivial coverage in this case for her to pass WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:01, 28 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Lessing[edit]

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

Non-Notable YouTube user a couple of mentions in a newspaper dose not pass Wikipedia:N. Also on suggestion of other user. Kyle1278 22:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the most fervent deletionists on the project created this article, so I can't imagine the subject isn't notable.--Milowent (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of brief mentions, but insufficient coverage to establish notability.--Michig (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I suspect that the creation of this article might be an exercise in WP:POINT, given the edit summary. Even so, insufficient coverage to show that he's notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete A mention in someone's blog is not an assertion of notability. 2 says you, says two 19:35, 30 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 WP:BLP1E w^L^{<speak·check>} 19:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Whitcroft[edit]

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

Non-Notable YouTube user one mention in a newspaper dose not pass Wikipedia:N. Also on suggestion of other user. Kyle1278 22:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the most fervent deletionists on the project created this article, so I can't imagine the subject isn't notable.--Milowent (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Youtube contributor who was injured in a crash. WP:BLP1E. --Michig (talk) 07:50, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Koval[edit]

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

Non-Notable YouTube user one mention in a newspaper dose not pass Wikipedia:N. Also on suggestion of other user. Kyle1278 22:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the most fervent deletionists on the project created this article, so I can't imagine the subject isn't notable.--Milowent (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability.--Michig (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too few reliable news sources. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 21:32, 30 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 A7 by Jimfbleak. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100 greatest athletes of all time[edit]

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

steaming pile of unreferenced WP:OR WuhWuzDat 22:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete isn't even research, it's one viewpoint of a topic that could be debated endlessly. Hopelessly unencyclopedic. RadioFan (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR at its purest. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure WP:OR. --NellieBly (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Calling this original research demeans actual research. I suspect it was copied from a list like this one, but I can't find the exact same one. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of whether it's the author's list or it's copied from someone else's list. Mandsford (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – Someone's personal list of greatest athletes has absolutely zero encyclopedic value, and that's assuming it wasn't ripped off from somewhere. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either original research or copyright violation. JB50000 (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is WP:OR—Chris!_c/t 05:18, 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 keep, consider merging. Arguments are fairly unanimous that this content is not worthy of deletion - beyond that, it's fairly evenly divided between keeping it as a separate article and merging it to Scrubs (TV series). I'd suggest that discussions are undertaken on the talk page to determine if and how this should be merged; but as far as this AfD discussion goes the content is clearly being kept in some form. ~ mazca ^talk 01:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Hospital (Scrubs)[edit]

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

A non-notable location in a TV programme. There is already a section in the parent article (here) that any notable content, if it exists, can be added into. WossOccurring (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 00:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the location of a notable multi-season television show. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the WP:PRECEDENT for that? Without a WP:WAX violation, there are not articles for Monica's apartment, Hilda and Zelda's house or even Central Perk. The plain fact is that Sacred Heart Hospital does not pass the WP:GNG. WossOccurring (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the former ""North Hollywood Medical Center" is the location.. Sacred heart hospital never existed there but in the imagination of the writers.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge the entire content. It is all mergeable, for it meets WP:V--the work itself is a RS for factual information of plot and setting. Content of an article does not have to be notable -- if it were, ever sentence in Wikipedia would be a separate article. A delete request implies that not even a redirect is appropriate, and I would like to know why the nom. thinks that would be wrong. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete it seems to me that when one types in sacred heart hospital and there are REAL sacred heart hospitals you should not be brought to an article about a fictionial hospital from a tv show. its fine to mention this "hospital" in the Scrubs article.. but a seperate page is not only unnecessary but confusing.. for instance .. I accidently stumbled on it by typing teaching hospitals or some such in the search box and finding it.. also if one were to skip through to the overview section.. one could assume they were reading about a real hospital or one with a reality tv show. This article should be deleted or at the very least put on a disambiguation page. I understand no articles for any sacred heart hospitals are currently in wikipidia(although a listing of them is).. so someone make a stub for one.. make it the main and put this on the disambiguation page or delete it outright. wikipedia should not really be a place for fictional places and things.. an article about a tv show should be acceptable as its a show people watch.. having one about about a fake hospital in fake tv show is just silly, confusing and uneccessary and a slippery slope. also.. as I above mentioned it IS NOT the location of the tv show.. it is NOT a real sacred heart hospital.. from the articles own wiki "the former North Hollywood Medical Center, a real decommissioned hospital at 12629 Riverside Drive in North Hollywood, Los Angeles, California. For the ninth series of Scrubs, the hospital will move to Culver Studios." .. so this maybe could be mentioned on the "North Hollywood Medical Center" article in a paragraph about after its closing...where it actually already is mentioned -Tracer9999 (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jclemens' and DGG's arguements. Cyclonius (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable. Here's a source for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. Also Tracer999's arguments seem more of a rant about wikipedia and real hospitals rather than having any real reasons for deletion--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Scrubs (TV series) The effect is simply to take a not-that-short paragraph and reduce it to a sentence. I don't think there's much of a need for a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jclemens' and DGG's arguements. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per Wossoccurring and Tracer9999. Most of the article relates to Scrubs and can be included there. Part is about the real location used for filming other shows so not about the title. As Woss says we do not have articles named after other fictional venues. Sussexonian (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woss is quite mistaken as every example that he gives is a blue link. We have many thousands of articles upon fictional places such as Camelot, 221B Baker Street, Hogwarts, etc. The article in question is in the Category:Fictional hospitals which contains many such places. So, your premise is quite counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at Category:Fictional hospitals, and frankly I'm inclined to nominate most entries in it. Most of them are short sections from articles on the series in which they appear, and could just as well be merged back into the parent article. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is not deletion. The distribution of material between parent articles and their children is just a matter of editing discretion, providing the most convenient navigation and easy reading for our readership. Deletion is different matter, being only for material without any merit or use at all. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement of the process is belied by precedent. It happens often enough that an article is merged into another as the conclusion of a deletion discussion. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The processes are, however, quite different. Deletion involves use of a restricted function which completely removes content and its edit history. Merger is just normal editing for which no special process is required, except care to acknowledge the rights and contributions of the original editors per our licence. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Scrubs (TV series). Not that notable on its own, but potentially useful information in the main article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Merge - which is different from both delete and keep, but possible delete because nobody's going to search for a common hospital name and put scrubs in parenthesis on the end. I find Jclemen's "argument" to be absolutely no argument and DGG's response doesn't address why merge isn't a better option. Having content in one place has tremendous advantages, including syncrocity, accuracy, search efficacy. I see no upside to keeping a separate offshoot of every location on every TV show. It's an absurd extension of the normal criteria for inclusion Shadowjams (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken about the searching. If you type "Sacred Heart" into our search box, then you will be prompted with a shortlist of article names which start in this way. Sacred Heart Hospital (Scrubs) appears among them and so is a quite satisfactory and helpful search link. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to persuasive arguments of User:Colonel Warden. The article's contents are verifiable through news sources and multiple published books, including an Encyclopedia of television subjects, themes and settings‎. Per first pillar, we typically include information that appears in such specialized encyclopedias. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Redundant to main article, already mentioned there/ Ryan4314 (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Yes, articles exist about fictional places. Just as many articles about fictional places get merged. As a topic by itself, the hospital enjoys no notability outside of the program itself. A good example would be the Jedi Temple. It appears in a couple of major motion pictures and is referenced extensively in the books and games. It is described in great detail in the books, as is the history of it. There are numerous references to the architecture, decor, importance etc. and the building plays an important role in a number of books. But the AfD ended up being a merge and redirect. I see less of a reason to keep this as a stand alone than that one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:17, 31 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, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Proctor[edit]

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

Why the page should be deleted? A couple reasons: Proctor wrote most of the article himself as an act of self-promotion in his political career and has now retired from public life and wishes for this page to go away. And no, I am not Proctor, I'm just his friend. Besides, several of the reference links are now dead. TheRealZajac (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the scourge of all Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. A public personality not wanting information on Wikipedia is not sufficient reason to remove the information unless it is unsourced negative information about a living person. This article isn't, so it doesn't meet the criteria for deletion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Proctor is hardly a public figure anymore. Besides, most of the "sources" come from his own website, which no longer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealZajac (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article is cited and does a good job with a notable person. Recording history is exactly what an encyclopedia is all about. A ridiculous nomination without any WP Policy foundation at all. !! Justa Punk !! 09:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't even know why this was nominated, its an obvious keep, weel sourced and if anything just needs to be expanded up to current standards. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 09:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question, just how major are Pasadena Weekly and the other newspapers cited in the article? The relevant pages seem to indicate that they're low-to-mid circulation "alternative" papers. If so, and given that some of the other sources have disappeared, this might not meet WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Probable keep - The subject has quite a few claims to notability, and it's pretty well referenced. I can't find any reason to delete. It's a slightly promotional article, but that can be fixed. I'm slightly concerned about the...uh...majority(?) of the references, but I don't think it's too major an issue, not quite enough to delete. He may not be a public figure any more, but notability is not temporary, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:34, 30 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) 03:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of extraterrestrial life in Alien Planet[edit]

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

Unnotable list of fictional extraterrestrial species from a single Discovery series special. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Even the main article is unreferenced and shows no notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support—The article is filled with original research: the only reference that I know of is the television episode, and I suspect some of the accounts here are "tainted" by reference to the Barlowe book on which the show was based. (Disclaimer: I was one of the scientists featured on the show.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks citations to third-party sources; no claim of real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems to be a bit extensive for a catalog of content in one 94-minute television show. Suggest that the content be trimmed and merged into the main article. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to article consisting of only detail from the primary source, the TV special itself. Dreamt-up (fictional) topics need real-world context. This does not have it. Erik (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge , since its just a single show, and doesn't need elaborate treatment. The delete nomination implies that none of the information should be kept, and I see no justification for saying that, as it does meet WP:V, sourced for the work itself is appropriate and sufficient to meet WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information to be kept. The main article already has the show description. Nothing else is needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The show is notable because of the extraterrestrial life on it, then you can't have a complete article without mentioning it. Its fine to put it here, in a side article, it not fitting too well in the main one. Dream Focus 03:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessive amounts of plot information for a 1.5h show, Alien Planet#Plot already does the job just fine (in length). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Alien planet; the show clearly meets the requirement for notability, but this might be excessive for a single documentary show. I'm sure this much detail isn't needed.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. if this content is taken from the book by barlowe, its copyvio. if its not, its original research. nuff said. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK there is no verbatim copying from Expedition. On the other hand, I think some of the critters were fleshed out with information from the book, since the TV show wasn't all that specific. But I could be wrong; it could be OR instead.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good points. i think what i meant to say is that since the book is essentially a fictional account of a survey of this planet, any significantly detailed descriptions of these fictional life forms is duplicating the very substance and point of the book. why would you need to purchase the book if the descriptions here are fairly accurate. combine that with scanned images from teh book that surely can be found on the internet, and we have a defacto copyright violation with us as a conduit for it. if this was a novel with alien descriptions as secondary to the plot, i could see brief descriptions being ok here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:07, 27 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) 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger Bikes Ltd[edit]

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

This company shows no/highly limited signs of notability. The original article creator seems to have been solely interested in inserting material into Wikipedia about this company. The name of the company is fairly generic, so on an exact search under Google there are 652 results, not one of which seems beyond a directory listing. I hence conclude its little more than a plain-Jane advert Trident13 (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom here, delete this unnotable company's article Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not covered in any books or news media. (Note that "passenger bike" is sometimes used to mean a Cycle rickshaw, which generates some news hits.) --Dbratland (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 02:03, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Cabaniss Bawcom[edit]

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

Pennsylvania's Best 50 Women in Business" nomination is not enough to pass notability requirements. And WP:SPA activities in the article space indicate WP:COI and look like an attempt of self-promotion. M0RD00R (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really notable, or covered by secondary sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete General lack of secondary citations and lack of notability, promotional piece. Off2riorob (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the award seems to be the chief claim of notability here, but it seems fairly minor. For all we know she was #50. Was not able to locate any secondary sources that would indicate notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 28 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NanoMission[edit]

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

This article is likely a result of paid editing: see my post at COIN. As such it wouldn't be here if it weren't for some unethical dealings behind the scenes. The product also fails WP:N as it hasn't received significant discussion in reliable, third-party sources. Them From Space 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the Google News, Books and Scholar hits before other editors can claim them as evidence of notability. Are they all non-independent? Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The hits I see are mostly press releases, and minor mentions. Coverage isn't significant enough to excuse the promotional nature behind the article. Them From Space 04:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a hit in BusinessWeek but little else. Nifboy (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two independent sources added. More mentions in Google Books. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:58, 16 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) 02:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam. If this is notable somebody else will rewrite it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Weak delete - as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlayGen, I feel the sources are merely re-worded press releases. Marasmusine (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Business Week article is sufficiently a RS for notability, and the sponsorship by the Wellcome trust is relevant also. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Business Week article is certainly good. Here's a mention on LibraryJournal.com. Here's another article. The book mentions are fairly minor, but there's three of them. There are also several science-related blog mentions, but they're not worth mentioning. SharkD Talk 23:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although several of the sources fall under 'reliable', they are not in-depth at all and I agree with Marasmusine that several of them are mere press-releases tweaked in order to create 'news', for very practical reasons this does not correlate with WP:N. Serious analysis is needed, not lip-service. The Library Journal piece for instance looks good at first blush, but further reading shows it's not the blog writer herself providing the information, and the bit about NanoMission is just academic garble followed by what looks like a copy-and-paste press release. The Business Week source spends very little time actually talking about NanoMission, instead going on about the expected lack of lab techs etc. etc. That's fine in terms of an article, but it's fuck-all use in filling out an article about NanoMission. The Digital Trends piece consists of 3 paragraphs, which is hardly a goodly sized source to start with, only one deals with the NanoMission series and even then only lists the 3 modules/games in turn and provides a minimal description. No, these sources might well be useful in writing up about education in this field but they're not good for writing about the subject of this article. Someone another 23:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage in any of the sources found. --Teancum (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Someone another. There's a lot of sizzle in the sources, but the steak - unrelated third-party notice in detail - simply isn't there. Sources seem to be either self-published, passing mentions, or just strange. --NellieBly (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The small number of mentions are, as User:Someone another points out, very light weight and are actually just feel-good rehashes of a press release. The large amount of detail regarding aspects of the game is way over-the-top for an article, and if those details are omitted, there is nothing left to say other than that the game exists and is concerned with nanotechnology. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs more references to strengthen notability, but the article itself is no weaker overall than many of the other Serious Games articles like Global Conflict: Palestine. The many press releases and high attention and involvement from well-known institutions also show there is notability here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.117.238 (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case you're not aware, press releases don't count towards notability at all (WP:GNG). Marasmusine (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the Business Week article, plus the non-trivial mentions in "Governing Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment" just tip this over the line, I think. Just. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. We have third-party coverage, but not that confident its in-depth and substantial enough to meet notability standards.--Pink Bull 04:12, 31 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 Miss World 2007. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Behrendt[edit]

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

as per WP:ONEVENT. she gets hardly any third party coverage and it's all for 1 event anyway [3]. LibStar (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She does appear in the German Wikipedia, however, I cannot translate to determine notability. I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. Location (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The German article also notes that she took part in Big Brother Germany (Season 6). Some pictures of her were taken, and there was a debate later whether these were too nude for her to participate in the beauty contest. As she covered her breasts with her hands, the images were considered to conform to the rules, and she was allowed to keep the title of Miss Deutschland (de),which is different from Miss Germany. I'd say delete unless beauty queens and Big Brother participants are automatically notable. — Kusma ^talk 09:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Kusma ^talk 09:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My impression is that national title holders like this subject are presumed notable because the pageants generate significant news/media coverage, and I see nothing justifying an exception in this case. Also meets WP:ANYBIO for winning a notable award/honor. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, however, that we don't currently have an article about the pageant she won... so the national title she holds may not be very notable. (I am German and had not heard of it, but then, I live under a rock). — Kusma ^talk 18:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. All kind of international not-so-celebrities have articles on en-WP, so I guess she should remain here, too. German WP is so deletion-happy that having an article there is notable by itself. Seen the note on the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board -- Matthead Discuß 18:48, 14 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) 02:36, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Miss World 2007. Behrendt is pretty, forgettable - 4 of the 6 references in the German article are broken links, one is her short biography as Miss Germany 2008 [4], and one discusses her breasts [5]. Directing English Wikipedia readers to Miss World 2007 will satisfy those trying to place an unfamiliar name, and linking to the German Wikipedia article (or a machine translation thereof) from Miss World 2007 will satisfy the rest. The gist of the German article is (if it matters), she was crowned Miss Brandenburg, began dating a beauty pageant organizer, appeared on German Big Brother where she exposed her breasts (but not completely), and was crowned Miss Germany 2008 before competing in Miss Universe 2007. Sadly, the article overlooks her role in the 2007 Banana Queen competition in Ecuador. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss World 2007, as suggested above by Yappy2bhere (talk · contribs). It's certainly a plausible search term, but I don't see that there's enough to write a substantial article on her. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect per above, perhaps until her career expands and notability is no longer in doubt.--Pink Bull 04:17, 31 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 WP:CSD#G3 (blatant hoax). E.g. he was 8 when the book "The Nobel laureates: how the world's greatest economic minds shaped modern thought" that he was supposedly cited in was published, and Krugman's Nobel didn't happen until seven years later. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Banerjee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Clearly a hoax, no more likely that a 16-year-old would have the attention of these two notables, especially since there are zero sources for the claims. The original version of the article claimed he was a medieval knight, the second version that he was a British solider in the early part of the 20th century. No sources, merely extremely unlikely claims of notability, but my speedy deletion tag was removed. Woogee (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. Possibly salt as this has a pattern of recreation dating back almost two years now. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the a7 because there is a claim of notability. There are no sources to back it up and this appears to be a blatant hoax and should be deleted as a g3. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:07, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of post-disco artists and songs[edit]

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

This article is a list of random songs produced or performed in the post-disco era. Most of the references in the article are not reliable (discogs/dusty groove), while most of the rest are either blogs or misinterpreted and such. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ridiculous and arbitrary list and WP:SYNTH. Eusebeus (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh yeah, WP:SYNTH is getting down tonight. Boogie and delete! Angryapathy (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - i propose to delete most of unsourced WP:Synth's and keep only sourced items. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a problem that every second list of songs/artists/shoes/booze/etc suffers. It's all about time. We should wait for more reliable sources. Some songs should be deleted, but I think deletion is not a good idea, but fixation is a change, that we can trust in. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that by limiting this to the sourced items, and by providing additional (and sourced) context that explains "post-disco", this can be a worthwhile spinoff of post-disco. I recognize that there's the opportunity for all sorts of jokes about disco music in general, but I'll forgo attempts at humor in this instance, since the author is striving to link to reliable and verifiable sources. Most articles don't bother. To the extent that there are problems with original synthesis, they can be fixed, particularly by limiting this to songs where that label was applied. Mandsford (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Post-disco is a real genre, so listing things that fall into it, is a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia list. Dream Focus 17:42, 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, Fences&Windows 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:41, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Post disco is also up for AFD. at least one of the songs on this list is not described in its article as post disco, but only as performed by a disco artist. we really would need each song on this list to have a solid reference calling it "post disco". if kept, it needs to be trimmed back to only those which are sourced as such.im currently undecided about whether to delete either or both articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think that's likely to be good enough, given that the problem with post-disco seems to be that anything after disco gets called "post-disco" in reviews and the like, whatever the genre. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "after the disco"? There's nothing after the disco. Post-disco is just some kind of eighties movement. That's all. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - excellent points. i guess we would need a group of well respected music journalists/scholars giving a consensus for a description of a particular style of music that they call post-disco, with their choices as examples of the genre, before either article here is valid.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - AMG calls it "genre" and this Thriller (album) review emphasize post-disco as "genre" too (and unreliable source last.fm saying it too). Some call it "boogie", but mostly it isn't clear if sources saying "post-disco" is a genre or after disco movement (that's why this AfD). It's so unclear about that. It's the same problem as in dance-pop or alternative dance articles. Yes, we need some experts. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 13:10, 27 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 --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ireland[edit]

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

This person is not notable, nor have they achieved anything especially important or worthy of note. The article is little more than a glorified online CV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chithecynic (talk • contribs) 17 December 2009

Speedy keep, ~~probable sockpuppet nominator~~, clearly inaccurate rationale. Follows a string of bad faith multiple PRODs and speedies from SPAs. Not a great article by any measure, but cites enough press coverage to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Checkuser did not associate this account with the identified sockpuppeteer, so I'll pull that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet nominator? Do you mind! I have contributed a number of articles to Wikipedia in the past, as well as improved the degree of accuracy in others. I came across this article on Tim Ireland for the first time today as a result of something I read on a blog that mentioned him. My nomination for the page's deletion was performed once (before I had logged in) and again (after logging in, because it was immediately reverted by an anonymous IP).

There is no "bad faith" in my actions and, frankly, I'm disappointed by the attitude of certain moderators here on Wikipedia in keeping articles which are little short of dross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chithecynic (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a whopping 47 edits over nearly four years, which hardly makes you a "semi-regular contributor," as you described yourself on my talk page. You placed two invalid prods on the page today, replicating the recent actions of various IP/socks/SPAs. Your nomination rationale is transparently inaccurate. Whatever the merits of the article, it's clearly not a "glorified online CV," especially given that it repeatedly cites national press coverage of/interviews with its subject. You'd made only six edits in the last year, then dropped into a running dispute and behaved quite like an already involved sock/vandal, right down to placing invalid prods on an article already deprodded multiple times by multiple editors, then demanding an explanation. If you edit inappropriately, repeating the actions of IP vandals and SPAs, you shouldn't complain about being identified with them. Adding back PRODs that have been removed is a clear violation of policy, and virtually a signature of a class of would-be vandals. Perhaps you might bother to explain why you edited so inappropriately, and why you elected to disregard the clear, valid point I made about your adding an "invalid repeat prod." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He seems to be notable, based on the content of the article and its references. – Eastmain (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I have never put up an article for deletion before, because I hadn't come across one that I didn't think deserved to exist on Wikipedia. This was the first time. As you have pointed out, I don't edit things that often, so I'm not accustomed to every single rule and regulation. I noticed that somebody had put the article up for deletion before, so I simply copied what they did. I then made a comment in the "talk" page for the article to say I had referred the article for deletion. You reverted it; I then realised I hadn't logged in, and assumed this was why it had been reverted. Having logged in, I referred it for deletion again. This time, a far friendlier editor sent me a message explaining what I needed to do to have the article deleted, and thus I followed their advice - hence this entry on the deletion log. I don't have any problem with your suspicions, but I do have an issue with your manner. You would do well to improve your online etiquette, something I note from your talk page you have been challenged on before. Don't jump to hasty conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chithecynic (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notwithstanding the nominator's motivations, I do believe there is some merit to the AfD, but personally I am undecided. I recommend further discussion of notability under WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Of the surprisingly few hits I found for the subject, coverage was slightly more than incidental - NYTimes [6], Newstatesman [7], The Gaurdian [8] all mention the subject, but not as the primary focus. Vulture19 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not particularly notable and this could never be described as a good entry. Magpie1892 19:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vulture19 - a number of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete non-notable individual. Involved in extremely minor political activism. References do discuss the article subject, but the focus of the references is not Tim Ireland, instead it is the political climate of Britain of which his activism is being reported as an example rather than because any individual action of his is inherently notable. None of the actions listed in the article could be considered to even vaguely fulfil WP:ANYBIO, namely that, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". For example, the protest in Parliament Square resulted in no arrests, nor any change in law, nor do any of the references indicate that it even prompted any significant discussion regarding people's right to demonstrate outside parliament. It seems to be the very definition of a non-event. Some of the information (what little is actually cited) could have a place in the article on the relevant UK election or a specific politician, but does not require an individual article. Fenix down (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete Not sockpuppet nomiator, not 'inaccurate rationale'. Self-penned article of subject without any notability. Not imformative, not relevant. Agree with above sentiments. Seven -nil (talk) 12.47, 18 December 2009 (UTC) — Seven-nil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete The references cited don't appear to have anything directly to do with Mr Ireland. He has his own website if he wishes to blow his own trumpet but Wikipedia is not the place for such tosh, especially as it is such a low-grade article. This standard of entry should last about five minutes before being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.28.34.132 (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Fenix down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.217.22 (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC) — 92.41.217.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note to closing admin: please see Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#A veritable sock drawer at Articles for deletion/Tim Ireland, which confirms some socking here. At least one of the !voting IPs is also a public hotspot, for however much that should be taken into account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE) Struck Seven-nil's vote as a votestack. No comment on the merits of the AfD or the IP addresses. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 21:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls well short of the GNG, this BLP article is just a mess. RMHED (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Crummy article, but in my view the sources in the article combined with those found by Vulture19 suffice to demonstrate notability—barely. Favonian (talk) 12:15, 24 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 // ark // 20:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Several editors have stated that the references indicate notability. Clearly they indicate that the article subject has attracted attention, however no one who has made such statements has made any attempt to link them to WP:ANYBIO. Disregarding the obvious socks / trolls here, the article appears to be leaning towards keep, no one has made any attempt to assert notability other than the arguement that a press article = notability. Aside from the other issues with this discussion is becoming very confusing. I am happy for the article to stay if notability is established, but no source quoted in the article asserts notability of the individual, they all focus on events he has organised, events that themselves do not appear notable temselves, making it hard to justify te article subject's notability. Fenix down (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial sources about the person, rather than namechecks in discussion of his work. As a Brit, I have never heard of him. Having read the article... I still haven't. We know he claims to have done a few things "first" (for whatever value of first might count in politics, where people routinely redefine the question to suit their claim) but there is no real biographical coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Thirs party coverage does not seem significant.--Pink Bull 04:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources provided by Vulture19 (talk · contribs) are passing mentions that are not specifically about the subject. The depth is not enough to establish notability. My own searches for sources have returned no results. This article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). Cunard (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really don't see the notability. A couple of mentions in the media about some relatively unimportant stuff. Seems more like stuff they put in to fill time/space than actual news. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:47, 31 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 -- nom Withdrawn DES ^(talk) 14:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis D. Berkey[edit]

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

The subject's only real notability is that he's the head of this private university; there's nothing else in it that really justifies him having a dedicated article. Suggest merging the content with and redirecting to the Worcester Polytechnic Institute article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaySL (talk • contribs) 15:15, 24 December 2009

Addendum: since nomination, some detail has been added, but it really doesn't contribute notability. On a side observation, the subject's predecessor doesn't have a Wikipedia article dedicated to him, presumably due to lack of notability. KaySL (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets criteria #6 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as president of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Article does need a lot of work though. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concession; fair enough, though that notability document is more a general guideline than a rulebook. I'll put an expansion tag on the article, and trust an administrator to remove this AfD. KaySL (talk) 20:41, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Murawski[edit]

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

Non-notable alleged Youtube celebrity. He supposedly has "a worldwide audience of millions," yet still only 172 unique Google hits, and nothing to support inclusion under WP:BIO. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of viewers If you read the article by Elyse Kaner, you would see solid proof of this. Please do your fact checking before you propose it for deletion because you alone think it's not notable. Iongatherer (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The mere fact that his videos have amassed a few million views doesn't in itself make him notable; in fact, I don't really see anything here that does assert notability as far as Wikipedia's guidelines are concerned. Please also assume good faith and not assume nobody has done their research just because they find the subject unimportant enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. KaySL (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally, I'd say speedy delete it due to lack of notability and possible vanity material, but there is a precedent so far which has seen other YouTube celebrities have their own articles; for example, TheHill88, Sxephil, and of course Chris Crocker. I'd have to say delete though, assuming others agree, as this guy doesn't even have what makes the three mentioned previously notable, which is, err... notability, though even theirs is ultimately disputable. KaySL (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanity material? I am not Derek Murawski, nor do I know him personally. There is no evidence to say that he even knows I have written this article yet. Iongatherer (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I did use the term 'possibly', though the wording of parts of the article can be construed as being overly-flattering in tone. The main problem with the article is that no subject notability is asserted. KaySL (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: If so, I would invite you to make any edits you feel necessary. It is a public encyclopedia, after all. Iongatherer (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: As I said above, the main issue with the article isn't its tone, style or layout; it's with his notability. Being an internet celebrity isn't grounds for inclusion on Wikipedia. In addition, as far as fans are concerned, they appear to be limited, at least as far as raw numbers of subscribers are concerned. I appreciate your desire to keep the article, since you created it, but I'm just stating facts here. KaySL (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: I don't agree about the fans... 8,500+ registered on YouTube alone seems pretty good, since most hollywood actors, etc, don't have a place where their fans can be counted. The viewership, ratings, and partner status are a better indicator of status. Iongatherer (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: Please see WP:BIGNUMBER for why his number of fans is irrelevant. KaySL (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it should be deleted. I did my homework on this article, and did it on my userpage/only made it public when it was complete. It has 15 sources and is well-written. There are sources for all of the claims made in this article. It is not a vanity piece. As I mentioned before on Derek Murawski's talk page, an article about an actor who, like Derek Murawski, is a graduate of Blaine High School has not been deleted in the 3+ years it has been on Wikipedia... and it has ZERO sources! Check it out for yourself: Blaine Hogan That sort of tiny, source-less article skates by untouched for over three years, but a well-written & formatted article with many sources (including a major Twin Cities metro newspaper & *NSFW* site called DudeTubeOnline with over 1,000,000 visitors each week) is considered for deletion? This makes no sense. And, arguably, Derek Murawski has more achievements than Blaine, as well as dedicated fans who make screen names, pages, videos, etc related to him. I am literally so confused it tires me. Murawski's obvious notability over Hogan in itself proves the article's notability -- as if the fifteen sources didn't already. Iongatherer (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative keep.~~ Yes, I did tag this for speedy deletion at one point, but then, this was used as a source. The general notability guideline speaks of multiple reliable third party sources, and this is just one, probably not sufficient either. But I would err on the side of caution here to give the creator some time to dig for more references. As an aside, I would tell the creator that "one million viewers" is not an assertion of notability, as this is actually the number of times the file has been viewed, including repeat viewers and web spiders, and the number of times the file has been viewed by the uploader himself. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has become apparent that other sources will not appear. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah, Blaine Hogan doesn't look very notable, but then see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, as I said in part in response to a comment on my talk page,

[A]s far as I can tell, ABC Newspapers amounts to the "Anoka County Union, Blaine-Spring Lake Park Life, Coon Rapids Herald, [and] Anoka County Shopper." For a high school kid, getting some coverage in his local town paper isn't bad, but you've got to admit it's not exactly the New York Times. Heck, if the Strib covered him it might be a different story. I'll admit he's somewhat more notable than most of the Myspace bands and YouTube kids who try to create articles (we delete as many of those as possible). However, I don't think he's at all notable enough (yet) to pass WP:BIO, or for his videos to pass WP:WEB. I couldn't care less about YouTube celebrities, and yet I've seen Chris Crocker probably a hundred times—now that's notability./blockquote>

And although I don't want to sign up to find out, it looks like his Twitter has 839 followers and his official fan forum has 14 members. (Can that possibly be right?) I'm not trying to slam the guy, but Blanchard is right that a raw pageview number doesn't tell the whole story. I've dug for references, and haven't come up with anything more. And while the author is right that the page is well-written and well-cited, with the exception of the ABC Newspapers article those citations all prove the truth of facts, not the notability of the subject. I appreciate the debate, though, so thanks for listening-- Glenfarclas (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could not be any more wrong about the member count... I am a member, and here is proof that there are 196 members http://i48.tinypic.com/2n7pmaq.png

It should be noted that if you go to the main link I provide to his most accomplished page, his YouTube, he has over 8,5000 fans/subscribers. You also see that there is no advertisement of his official website. In addition to this, there is no recent activity for months on this website. I provided the link because it says it's the "official"... but that doesn't mean it's an accurate representation of his popularity, or is at all active. Also, there is no link to his Twitter account. I would say 800+ followers is pretty damn good for no advertisement. In addition, his almost all of his videos are featured in search results, and he is a YouTube partner. I believe the notability lies in the facts that are proven. A well-sourced article like this could probably not be made about any of us, therefore in itself it proves the subject's prowess online and the interest in them. It should also be noted that being on iTunes & charting is no easy feat. Iongatherer (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've stressed the point several times, but I'll say it again, then back out of this debate for a bit until others contribute. The subject fails both WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO, therefore no justification by way of pointing out numbers of subscribers, iTunes listing, etc. is sufficient. KaySL (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability is established. I don't think other bad examples justify keeping this. Just means we all need to do the review work a bit more thoroughly. And this page can return when and if... Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice if more people take notice. The only genuinely third-party reference is a human-interest piece in a local newspaper. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted I am the subject, but I have recently noticed this article through a Google Alert I received... I read the conversations about it, and honestly I have to agree with the fan who wrote it. It is an excellently written article. As far as a second source, I can say I have a possible Star Tribune article in the works for my album release & definitely another one with ABC Newspapers. I would say that because the consensus seems to be "keep if there are more sources because it's good," you should postpone this deletion or somehow put it in the original author's sandbox for later posting (when there are more sources). Thanks for the interest! Dmurawski (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mister Murawski, the consensus before your comment was weighted 2:1 in favour of deleting the article. Bmclaughlin9 was in favour of keeping the article only if notability could be established under WP:BIO and/or WP:BAND; he did not state that such notability exists. Therefore the only real consensus (shared by Bmclaughlin9, Mangoe, and myself) is to delete the article. On a side note, would you and Iongatherer happen to know each other, only there are striking similarities between him and another user you once collaborated closely with on this article; namely Jorotayahbl, who was found to be a sockpuppet operated by you. KaySL (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have never corresponded with such a person. And the last time someone made an article about me was a while back... FOR the record, Jorotayahbl is NOT a sockpuppet... no matter which Wikipedia "wiz" found this, she's actually my close friend Leah who decided I she felt I should have an article. Sue me for having friends with internet connections & access to a public website. That is all. Dmurawski (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the findings reflect Wikipedia's official stance on the matter, so as far as we or they are concerned, the account was created for sockpuppeting purposes; the timing of your mutual edits for one were quite suspicious, and the similarities and apparent close connection between Iongatherer and yourself doesn't help matters, and neither does the fact that neither of you seem able to justify this article's existence under Wikipedia's guidelines. Sorry if I sound confrontational here, it's not my intention; I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the matter. KaySL (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it an even 2:2 now Iongatherer (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately AfD isn't a voting station; it is a place to reach proper consensus, but failing that, pointing out a lack of notability of any relevant articles usually suffices for having cruft removed. KaySL (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, there just doesn't seem to be the secondary sources about this person required to establish notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found to verify notability TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:19, 30 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 Rusty Mike Radio. As editors might want to take some of the material for a merge, I'm closing as a redirect; very nearly an outright delete. Fences&Windows 01:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Mike Sports[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability. The radio station Rusty Mike Radio may be notable insofar as it was written up in the Jerusalem Post, but this one program, which runs for one hour once a week, seems to have virtually no coverage. Google returns 7 hits, including this article, for either "Rusty Mike Sports" or "Rusty Mike Radio Sports". Further, I just discovered that the show isn't even called Rusty Mike Sports: according to the station's website, it's called The U.S. Sports Show. But Google returns no hits for this name besides the station's page.

Finally, due to the editing history of this article, appearing as it does to have been created by one or both of its cohosts operating under several user accounts (I've flagged them for sockpuppetry), I think this article serves no purpose other than a promotional one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I almost nominated this one last night for exactly the same reasons, but got sidetracked and am glad to see it here now. It certainly can't be the case that every local radio Morning Zoo and the like is notable, and this one is no exception. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN internet 'radio' show. --Shuki (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No outside coverage. Non notable. Shlomke (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an American living in Israel, this radio show is unique and groundbreaking. There are many American sports fans in Israel who I believe would agree(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlifs999 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, the issue I cited is that the station appears not to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. This doesn't involve a judgment of the station's value, its uniqueness or its groundbreaking qualities, but on its coverage, or lack thereof, in reliable sources. If it is truly unique and groundbreaking, then it will no doubt be covered in such sources in due course. If and when that happens, an article can be posted here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merge into Rusty Mike Radio, the article about the "station" in general.--Pink Bull 04:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rusty Mike Radio, seemingly not enough notability on its own. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:44, 31 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) 03:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twinsplay[edit]

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

This a MS Windows tiling window manager, but I can't find in-depth coverage in secondary sources that establish notability. The Softpedia link in the article is not a review. Pcap ping 19:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article for non-notable software, and I can't find any significant coverage either. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly useful, but I don't see any substantial coverage of this software. What coverage does exist seems to be directory entries, blogs, and other things that don't meet WP:RS. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:19, 28 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) 03:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attia Al-Iqtadar[edit]

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

Procedural nom. Concern is "Fails our Notability guidelines for people." TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Someone born in 1992 a veteran? What does that make those of us three times her age? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "veteran" journalist? Tee-hee-hee. I was able to locate a couple of her pieces, but nothing substantially about her. She might go on to become a notable journalist, but she's not there yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not quite notable yet! Veteran! Francium12 00:45, 31 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) 03:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kawsar Zaman[edit]

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

Procedural nom. Concern is "Fails our Notability guidelines for people." TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see an indication of notability to meet our guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:28, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarob Walsh[edit]

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

Can't find any sources except passing mention for this person, fails WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT BigDunc 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:BLP1E, and a lack of sources in general. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, war is dangerous, but getting shot at doesn't make you notable. I wasn't able to locate any substantial sources about this person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:25, 28 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 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G10 (negative unsourced biography). I thought that was only supposed to apply to living people? The deleted version of the article states (in the still-untranslated French part) that he died in 1998. And I'm not seeing the attack content. But it was deleted, so might as well close the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idalio Fialho[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to come close to meeting WP:BIO. As far as I've read in the article while translating it, as adventurous and heroic as his life was, he doesn't seem to have become well known, and there are no Google hits for "Idalio Fialho" or "Idalio Angelo Fialho", other than a single Google Books hit for a book that was dedicated to someone by the name Idalio Fialho, but doesn't otherwise mention him. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced biography of someone who, despite being Portuguese and having lived in France, was not notable enough to appear in the Portuguese or French Wikipedias. If he was a notable politician he'd be mentioned somewhere online. For all we know this could be completely WP:MADEUP. --NellieBly (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Political activist (not a politician as stated by the article, as he has never held office) with no real evidence of notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:19, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MUGGES[edit]

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

Previously deleted by prod and recreated, this is yet another article on an FP7 project, part of a ongoing effort to get articles on Framework Programme projects onto Wikipedia. MUGGES stands for Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, and there are no independent sources for notability. Abductive (reasoning) 19:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are thousands of collaborative projects and they all lead to scientific publications. Nothing out or the ordinary, therefore, unless something else crops up, this does not meet GNG. --Crusio (talk) 19:30, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard K. Hulse[edit]

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

Non-notable U.S. Civil War lieutenant. I guess I can call myself a "weak delete" on this one, since on one hand I don't generally object to legitimately historical material even though minor, but on the other I'd hate to think what would happen if we permitted articles for any equivalently accomplished modern lieutenant (and above). If the author really has more to add that would lend any degree of notability (see talk page), I'm willing to hear it, but otherwise sadly I just can't see it at all. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One article in the Civil War Times is not enough to demonstrate notability. --NellieBly (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References not sufficient to establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think anybody who had such a high rank in the Civil War should be made notable, but we are unable to find much of anything on this guy. You can't compare him to Ulysses S Grant. At least not yet.(MDesjardinss (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete: with all due respect to MDesjardinss, first lieutenant (or even captain, as the lead states he was a first liuetenant and body says captain) is not a high rank at all. Indeed, within the Australian Army currently the majority of new officers that graduate from Duntroon do so with the equivalent rank. Hence, they are the most junior officers in our Army. In the ACW I would assume that a first lieutenant was the most senior lieutenant within a company and therefore probably the company 2ic or in command of the senior platoon. If he was a captain, then he was a company commander. Either way, neither of those positions by themselves are notable and without an expansion to the article or a claim that he was the recipient of a notable award (i.e. MOH or multiple second level awards) I don't see that it meets the notability guidelines. The military history project as written something of a general criteria for notability of military personnel. It is contained here. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed; there would have been tens of thousands of lieutenants in the US Army at any given time during the Civil War. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete How many untold millions of lieutenants would we be adding if we started adding them. Not notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A captain is a high rank (for the record). Anything above Sergeant is a commanding officer, and you dont get that by licking popsicles. It takes years to become an officer, let alone a captain. He was a captain (never mustered). Yes there is not alot out there on him, but that is because the one article was SOLELY devoted to him. It just is effed up that alot of people who fought in wars who did something heroic can't be kept here, even when they are a CO, because someone on the internet deems them "not important". Okay. I don't know this person who i created the page for, but I liked the story.Phaeton23 (talk) (UTC)

With all due respect, as someone with military experience I can state categorically that you are wrong. A captain is not a high rank, and a sergeant is not a commanding officer. A lieutenant commands a platoon (roughly 30 men), a captain might be a company 2ic or historically a company commander (about 120 men). A captain commanding a company would then be an OC (officer commanding). A battalion commander or above is a CO (commanding officer) and they would be a lieutenant colonel or above, in command of a unit of between 500 to 1,000 men (or women) [depending upon branch of service and historical period]. Also the project's notability guidelines have been produced by concensus, largely with the input of many users who are either currently serving or have served so have no reason to deny heroes their due. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable military officer, lack of non-trivial reliable-sources fails WP:GNG and therefore fails notability. Skinny87 (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not a matter of rank but of sourcing. The source seems satisfactory and the arguments against all seem to be the weak argument of WP:ALLORNOTHING. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very junior officer (despite claims to the contrary) with no great claims to notability. With all due respect to Colonel Warden, notability is not just a matter of sourcing but of achievements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the record, in response to AustralianRupert, I never said a sergeant was a CO. So because he was not awarded for his valor, that makes him.....nothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaeton23 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it makes him one of countless thousands of junior officers throughout history. Are you advocating we have an article on every single lieutenant or captain who ever lived? Surely not! There are many thousands serving in the US Army today alone. Not having an article on Wikipedia doesn't make one nothing, now, does it? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me clarify lest I am being misunderstood, no one is saying that this person is a "nothing". I'm sure that he did his duty and was worthy of respect, however, it does not mean that he is notable by the definitions of notability currently used by the Military History project. These criteria are listed here. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I understand he is a junior officer, even though he was promoted to Captain. Due to the fact that neither his commanders nor the President gave him an award, his actions are "enough" for wikipedia standards? is that what is missing? My grandfather served in the Army and was a Captain, but I'm not making him a page. Mr. Hulse exemplified bravery in the war, and considering he lived through some of the bloodiest battles (not including Antietam and Gettysburg) and he saved alot of fellow soldiers, with no brass, copper, silver, gold, or any other medal given to him by a superior, he is deemed unimportant (by Wiki standards). Also, this man had some ties to important people. Why doesnt wiki make a special section for all soldiers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaeton23 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could say the same about every other junior officer who has fought in a war. That's many thousands in each world war, for instance. We simply cannot make a page about each one. So ask the question: why is this gentleman special? The answer is that he isn't. That doesn't make him a nothing. It just makes him like the vast majority of people in the world: ordinary. He was caught up in a war, he served with distinction, he survived. That doesn't make him stand out from the crowd. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:26, 29 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) 07:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martinus Herman van Doorn[edit]

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

Does a single famous student make a boarding school notable ? The only info I could see were refs from Wilhelm Roentgen's biography, which note that he attended there. Plvekamp (talk) 01:19, 10 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) 02:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I moved the page to the correct title, Instutut Martinus Herman van Doorn Based on the information in the Nobel Prize site bio of him, it was a secondary school, , he attended it until the age of 17. --but the school that expelled him was not this one, but a subsequent school; Secondary schools are notable. It would help to find some more information about the school, and the actual years he attended. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 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, Cirt (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - boarding high schools are notable and a school attended by Nobel prize winner is particularly significant. TerriersFan (talk) 20:30, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Konstantin[edit]

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

Seems to assert notability in a vague sort of way, but despite a host of sources about his lineage, his family, his time as a police officer, etc. the article doesn't indicate how he meets any of the WP:BIO criteria. Simply writing a couple of books does not mean one needs a Wikipedia article. If someone can rescue this, by all means feel free, but I'm not finding a whole lot out there. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not conform to WP:BIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadManCF (talk • contribs) 01:31, 10 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) 02:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/improve There is some argument for notability under WP:AUTHOR because he has one book published by a notable publisher (Da Capo Press) and was involved in the notable For Dummies series. If his NASA involvement could be backed up with reliable sources the article could also satisfy WP:BIO but I am also finding little to go on. Perhaps the article could be reconfigured toward his status as an author, where there is a little more notability to work with. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:56, 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, Cirt (talk) 18:47, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precious Little Podcast[edit]

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

This doesn't really explain why this particular podcast is notable enough, and I can't find much on Google about it. Neither of the sources is particularly useful either (one is the own site, the other is a list of performance dates). fetchcomms☛ 18:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont see how this might ever meet notability guidelines. Lacks any coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this podcast. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 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 speedy keep. redirect agreed (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 02:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratpoison[edit]

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

This tiling window manager gets mentioned alongside others in lists in various books [9] [10] and articles [11], but there's nothing in-depth in reliable secondary sources to justify a separate article, and we have article on this type of product, as well as notable exponents, like Ion (window manager). Pcap ping 17:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 18:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Those are examples of reliable, secondary sources. The notability guidelines do not call for "in depth" coverage (do you mean "exclusive" when you say this?), but only "significant" coverage. This may be up for debate, but I find those & the other links on google books and google news to constitute significant coverage that certainly have enough facts to fully reference this stub. If people don't agree with keeping this article, perhaps the several window managers that you've recently listed in AfD (that you've pointed out have reliable sources) should be merged to a single article. --Karnesky (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are already mentioned list-style in the tiling window manager article (that's where I found them). Given that they're mentioned list-style in the secondary sources as well, I'd say that's appropriate. Pcap ping 22:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why do you contend this should be deleted (as opposed to merging and redirecting the articles)? --Karnesky (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can redirect as well, but I suspect that if I did just that you'd have reverted me, and there's no other forum for discussing redirects of non-notable article topics. AfD is "articles for discussion" with respect to notability. The result can be a redirect. See for instance licq (look in article history). Pcap ping 22:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion & you should only nominate articles you feel should be deleted. It is true that some discussions lead to merges, but merges & redirection are best discussed on the talk pages of the articles in question & there are templates you can use to make this easier. You can notify the contributors to the articles in the same way you can [and probably should] inform them of an AfD. If you need wider participation, there are also solutions that are less aggressive than AfD. Please let me know if you need help with this.
      - It seems to me that you are withdrawing your nomination. I would not revert a redirection. I don't have a super strong opinion as to whether this should be a stand-alone article or should be in a larger article on multiple window managers, but throw up the merge tags & see if anyone else objects. --Karnesky (talk) 01:57, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XWEM[edit]

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

Practically a WP:DICTDEF. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable WP:SECONDARY sources for this software besides the usual directories of open source, and an entry in the emacs wiki [12]. Pcap ping 17:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:42, 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. A rough consensus of this discussion does not show enough support for deletion to close as such. Rather, about two-thirds supported keeping or merging/redirecting, with the arguments that the subject has sufficient notability to meet the general notability guideline and that a redlink should be avoided. A number of editors expressed that enough content exists on the subject to warrant a separate article, so I am hesitant to close this discussion as merge/redirect, but would highly encourage such a discussion be opened on the article talk page. Cheers and best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manon Batiste[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has undergone negligible improvement during and since the previous AfD. The scant real-world commentary to the character is presented as a passing reference in a single review of the game itself, or as a series of non-independent "developer diaries" or direct quotes from producers about the music and the character -- i.e. topic has not received "significant" coverage. All of this content has already been copy-and-pasted to the relevant game article (or articles?). (This article's talk-page claims that this real-world information was "merged" to these target articles and that this base article must remain to maintain attribution. However, because the "responsible" editor made all the edits and used the exact same language, there seems not a need to maintain this article's history -- it wasn't so much a "merge" as a near-simultaneous copy-and-paste.) ANYHOW -- this article makes no substantiated claim for the topic's real-world notability independent of the game in which it is a protagonist, or other games in which it appears. A redirect has been undone, with one editor claiming that notability is established because the character is "one out of millions of game characters based on an actual historical figure". However, this claim is not articulated in the article itself, let alone substantiated -- furthermore, unless there's an academic investigation into "the few numbers of game characters based on historic figures," an interesting bit of statistical trivia doesn't convey notability. There is no compelling rationale to maintain this unnecessary content fork (which consists of snippets of duplicated passing commentary, and mostly gameplay/plot regurgitation). --EEMIV (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that previous AfD's closing admin's suggestion that sources be added hasn't been met. --EEMIV (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and prior argument; unencyclopaedic fancruft repeatedly restored by disruptive editor. Jack Merridew 17:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per GFDL. The article has undergone considerable improvement during and since previous AfD. The significant real-world commentary is presented in multiple reviews of the game. The article undeniably demonstrates real-world notability independent of the game in which it is a protagonist, or other games in which it appears. A redirect has been undone by multiple editors, with one editor claiming that notability is not established because the character. This claim is articulated in the article itself and is substantiated by reliable sources, which conveys notability. There is no compelling rationale to delete this necessary content appropriate spinoff (which consists of significant commentary, and development and reception information). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobody, have you once again forgotten the many, many times you've been asked (including several times by me) not to parrot back the structure and wording of other editors' comments? Why on Earth would you again stoop to such annoying mimicry? --EEMIV (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you see fit to swear and mock editors in your incivil edit summaries: [13], [14], etc.? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and others mimic other editors comments ALL the time. So what? But Edit summaries like EEMIV's, mocking other editors comments, are much more troubling: "simplifying puffy bulshittery"[15] "trying to puff up bullshit content?"[16] are actually ACTIONABLE as personal attacks. Ikip 20:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removed some borderline attacks. Let's try to be civil. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the so-called-attacks; they're not. Let's not muddy this discussion. Jack Merridew 19:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we delete, strike, or move to the talk page everything here? Everything from "A Nobody, have you once again forgotten the many..." down?

Can you rewrite your section A Nobody since it obviously annoys EEMIV? Ikip 20:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, don't care to see this discussion redacted. Jack Merridew 20:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. The references are merely name-checks on gaming websites. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable is not a valid reason for deletion and certainly when not true due to the out of universe commentary on reliable website. This book, for example, is not a gaming website. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you and your friends don't like the words: "non-notable" & "cruft" doesn't make my argument any less valid. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether agreeing/disagreeing with a subjective "notable/not-notable" agrument, the factual aspect is indeed invalidated when the information is sourced from The Boston Globe and a few published books. Sure, some of the sources could be better, but there is enough coverage in reliable print secondary sources that is is factually inacccurate to say "The references are merely name-checks on gaming websites." This is not a gaming website. Moreover, it is out of universe, real world historical context: "She also was a consultant in 2000 for a Sony PlayStation game called ``Medal of Honor: Underground," featuring a heroine named Manon and based on her World War II missions". At worst in such a scenario we would we merge and redirect per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better and WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the refs are poor, hence there are not enough refs to to represent notability. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the majority of the refs are quite good and it meets a common sense standard of notability. A character that appears in several games that appear on multiple systems including as the main character as seen on the game, the soundtrack, and strategy guide's covers who is familiar to millions of people worldwide is notable by an reasonable interpretation of that term. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not: Refs 1-5 are name checks simply confirming the character exists and who her voice actor is. 6 is ok. 7 + 8 are specialised sources, not "independent of subject" (of course interviews with the game development staff would feature her, they do not represent coverage in the media however.) 9 + 10 simply recount in-game plot details. 11 + 12 are ok, but the point 13 references isn't even worthy of inclusion. In short, 3 "ok" refs do not represent notability, therefore does not warrant an individual article. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collectively they are citations in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject are more than enough to justify inclusion on Wikipedia that cover out of universe development and reception information, i.e. they meet WP:N in such a decisive manner to warrant an individual article. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collectively they are a bunch of name-checks. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of universe reception and development information is hardly mere names checkes. Please remember to be honest. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is there for all to see: 5 are name-checks, the 2 interview refs are not "independent of subject" and the rest recount plot. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone actually looking at the references will see that the reviews of the game are indepdent of the subject and recount of out universe reception information. The interviews count as reliable sources for development information. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they don't indicate notability (the issue at hand) as they're not "independent of subject". Ryan4314 (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are indepdent of the subject they indicate notability and I am not going to be persuaded otherwise no more than if someone tried to convince an apple is really a tangerine. And as this content was merged a while back and therefore cannot be deleted anyway per the GFDL, there is nothing to gain by going in circles. Have a good night! --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews of the game's development staff are obviously not independent of the subject. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The numerous reviews and previews of the c. half dozen odd games she appears in are. There are far more sources available on her than only those cited in the article. You can help by adding some more. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one claiming that good refs exist, you find em. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already have (although I have actually also ordered some additional items from Ebay that cover her and that are not viewable on Google Books in preview/snippet form; these should arrive after New Years) and if I show you a basketball and you insist it really is a baseball then bringing forth another basketball will probably just have the same results. Fortunately, though, the majority of commenters here reasonably see that a playable character in a mainstream multiplatform franchise released globall for which millions of people are familiar with a character based on a real world person whose article got a DYK is at worst merge and redirectable, but there is no justification or need whatsoever to burden an admin with redlinking this article and to protect the public from its content. Good night! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you think we should keep this article so as to not "burden an admin with redlinking". Ryan4314 (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no discussion of this minor video game character and its real world impact/meaning. The only one or two reliable sources that mention this name merely, well, mention it as in the obit. Clear fail of all the notability and inclusion guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be sure to read the discussion and review sources when commenting in AFDs. The Boston Globe presents out of universe, real world historical context: "She also was a consultant in 2000 for a Sony PlayStation game called ``Medal of Honor: Underground," featuring a heroine named Manon and based on her World War II missions". Besides, as this content was merged months back, it cannot be deleted per the GFDL anyway. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it all. I accept you think that sentence constitutes in depth exploration and analysis of the character. I think it constitutes a trivial mention in an entirely different context. So don't presume to lecture me about what i have or haven't read. I simply disagree with you. Sincerely and with the utmost respect.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing a playable character from a major franchise with appearances beyond the game on which she even appears on the cover art who is based on a real person. There is NO pressing need to redlink such a valid search term and certainly not when there is sufficient in depth exploration and non-trivial analysis of the character to justify at worst the merge for which we cannot redlink anyway. By the way, you can see her on the cover of this book. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i also accept that you believe promotional cover art using a fictional character that appears in a work of fiction consstitues in depth, ongoing, independent analysis and coverage of the sort that would justify an entry for the fictional character seperate from the work of fiction itself in a general encyclopedia. I don't believe any of that. I believe it constitues advertising for the work of fiction and provides no information -- none, zilch, nada -- that would allow to construct a proper encyclopedia article or justify inclusion. With warmest affection and great sincerityBali ultimate (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is irrelevant as this discussion cannot end in delete anyway due to the requirement of keeping attribution history public. And it is not a mere fictional character, but rather an adaptation of a real person. Moreover, we are NOT just a general encyclopedia. Per our first pillar, we are also a specizliaed enycclopedia and a paperless one at that. The out of universe development and reception information are sufficient to justify inclusion as a proper encyclopedic article. By contrast, there is absolutely no pressing need to redlink something that is not a hoax, not libelous, nor a copyright violation. A major character with appearances in multiple mainstream games as verified in multiple reliable sources meets any reasonable or common sense standad of notability in addition to the ever changing Wikipedic definition. It is not a matter of subjective opinion. It is a matter of objective fact that 1) she is a main character; 2) she is based on a real person; 3) information in the article is verified in multiple reliable sources; 4) content has been merged and so the edit history must remain public per the GFDL; 5) she is not a hoax; 6) she is not libelous, etc. There is no objective need to redlink. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not objective. You can make a case for restoring the redirect (which is the worst possible acceptable outcome, as it cannot legally be deleted), but that is it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wall of text does not change the fact that there is no independent reliable source analysis and discussion of the real world relevance of this character anywhere. With the highest sincerity i can muster.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that a banana is not a banana but it doesn't change the fact that it is, just as you can claim over and over that no independent reliable sources analysis and discussion exists of the real world relevance of this character despite such sources being presented both in this article, across two discussions, and by even a rudimentary Google search. Information from this article was used to make a DYK article on a real person. No one can objectively deny that this character is covered in out of universe fashion in multiple indepdent reliable sources, but again, since the article cannot be deleted anyway, there is no real point to this exchange. So, Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The info is too much for the main article. The references are standard for fictional characters. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "main article" to which you refer -- I'm assuming the game in which she's a protagonist -- is actually bereft of any gameplay details. The contents in this particular article are poorly written gameguide trivia, but the notion that there's "no room at the inn" for additional content at the game article is simply incorrect. As for "standard" references -- I agree that many articles about fictional characters are absolute crap and are shittily referenced; that's a reason to excise this cruft, not maintain it. If you think this article meets an appropriate threshold for material about fictional characters, please compare it to e.g. Master Chief (Halo), Jabba the Hutt or James T. Kirk. The first two set a high bar as FAs, but the third isn't even GA status -- *that* is the standard that clearly establishes notability, not the sparse, passing references that constitute this "content." --EEMIV (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The scant development and reception presently in the article isn't enough to justify keeping the article. The development section in fact is composed of one quote which is already placed in the parent's article and which is more about the music anyway. The single sentence of the reception easily fits within the purview of the parent. There are two problematic articles here, not one: Let the story of this single character be told within the not-existing plot section of the parent (which should exist, mind you) and by the person this story is based on. This is a delete based on the article failing WP:PLOT; mind you though, there is a place in the parent article for some of that. 3-500 words should be about right. --Izno (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am hesitant to amend my view completely to a "merge and redirect" as asked to by A Nobody on my talk page. That was the gist of my comment, but a "merge and redirect" consensus might be closed as a "no consensus", which is arbitrarily... non-decisive. If the closing administrator is willing to close this as a "merge and redirect" (I do not mean here that the closing admin can only choose that), then consider my comment to be in favor of a merge and redirect. --Izno (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The one things that is not appropriate is a delete, because we would certainly want a redirect. The nom does not even indicate otherwise. Normally I would advocate that we merge such articles into one for the characters, but it seems that there is sufficient to talk about for this one. Arrangement is optional; the key thing is keeping the content, and considering other nominations of combination articles by other people (not including the nom of this article, BTW), the likely result will be the removal of content altogether, or the limitation to the bare name on a list. If there were any indication at all that the fiction minimalists (among whom I do not include EEMIV)were prepared to compromise, I would say those wanting comprehensive coverage of fiction should also. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - spans a few games, has real-life relevancy which is sourced (I see >2 sources)...and has been voted one of the 12 Best Female Characters in Video Games....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See REALPOOR IS A FAN BLOG. No reliability *at all*. We covered that in the last AfD. You might as well cite fan reviews too.. Really, Cas, this is a pure as the driven cruft. Merry Christmas, Jack Merridew 23:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If its not used as a source in the article, then it being a blog matters not one whit. However, what is worth considering that it seems indicative of the cult following of the game and of the character. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cult following ... of the character"? Can you cite a single source that asserts, or even speculates, about such widespread adoration and interest? --EEMIV (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do see a cult following, but mostly it's pretty local to this set of pages. There would be further bits of such fanish wankage out there on the wider interwebs, but, really, the barriers out there are low and any twit can post or write a 'review'. Shite dredged up by Google is largely meaningless. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love cruft, so...er yeah, Jack. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Find and collaborate with people who love what you love. ;) Jack Merridew 07:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff fragmentation, I prefer unified knowledge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or do a proper Merge and set a redirect per coverage granting notability per WP:GNG. Reviews? In context with the game itself? Naturally. But coverage is coverage. Though not all are in-depth, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Ars Technica, St Louis Post Dispatch, Real Poor Softpedia, CNet 1, Cnet 2, Cnet 3, Netjak, show coverage since 2000. Not just a blip on the scope. And then there are the numerous books covering the subject... also in context to the game. Yes, one need not agree, but per guideline, these show notability and the article meeting the requirements of WP:STAND. With respects to the nominator, that additional sources had not been added since the last AFD was a reason to fix it through normal editing, not delete it because it was not done within some unrequired and arbitrary deadline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying the protagonist's name and then not discussing the character at all != notability of the character, It = read the press release or the manual and included the name. Can anyone offer multiple examples of significant coverage? Passing references, even times 1,000, != significant coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't play the game nor do I care about it. Per guideline, "number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources", and [Manon Batiste] "need not be the main topic of the source material". Yes, significant coverage is always preferred, but if it is lacking, multiple less-than-in-depth coverages serve the same purpose as long as they are not a trivial mentions in a list or some such. A character repeatedly discussed in context with the game meets that criteria. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, there's not even discussion. The name is mentioned, and the avatar immediately forgotten; the actual discussion in all of these reviews is on the plot, the controls, "the player"'s actions -- but, there's no discussion of the character itself. It really is just passing mentions of the name. Put in another way: all of these reviews would be just as clear and structured just the same if they replace the phrase "Manon Batiste" with "the player's character" or "the player" -- the "identity" of this construct is immaterial, and not subject to even passing, marginal discussion; it's just a name drop, and references to "the idea" of this character promptly evaporate. --EEMIV (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Klepek explains how "Gamers who played Medal of Honor will remember Manon, part of the French Resistance, who was an enormous help toward his efforts. Still set in the era of World War II, the year is 1940 and the German armies have overrun Manon's town. Attempting to survive with her brother and the few people still around in her town, Manon's best companion, her brother, is tragically killed during a routine raid to retrieve weapon supplies. Manon then sets out to meet up with her brother's contacts in order to fight against the Nazis. It will take all her strength and perseverance in order to move up the ranks in the OSS so that she can head back home and help in the liberation of her nation." See Patrick Klepek, "Review of Medal of Honor: Underground," Gaming Age (11/22/2000).</ref> According to GamePro, Manon is a "young member of the French Resistance introduced as Jimmy Patterson's 'control' in the original Medal of Honor. Set prior to the start of the original Medal of Honor game, Underground follows Manon's journey journey from a naive member of one of France's first resistance movements to that of a seasoned veteran recruited by the OSS who ultimately becomes a key figure in the Allied invasion at Normandy."^[1] The "final mission has Manon return to Paris to assist in its liberation from German occupation. See "Medal of Honor: Underground," GamePro (2009). All of these are more than just passing mentions. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But those *are* just passing mentions: just a few sentences dredged up with Google that retell a bit of the game plot. We can not hang an article off such trivial coverage. This is an encyclopaedia that requires significant coverage in sources. The net volume of source material should outweigh the resultant article, not be unbalanced the other way by a factor of better than ten. Jack Merridew 23:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The weight given to particular details and sections is a matter of ordinary editing and so is quite irrelevant to a deletion discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I keep finding more out of universe information: Critic Ian Lace said of her theme: "One has to suppose that the main character of this new game, Manon, inspired by the exploits of Hélène Déschamps is French. Michael Ciacchino has created a theme for her that in its first few notes irresistibly makes me want to anticipate the old pop song, 'Arrivederci Roma' which I found disconcerting because she is French and so much of the action, particularly at the beginning and end, takes place in Paris." See Ian Lace, "Medal of Honor (Underground) CD Review," MusicWeb International(January 2001). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Medal of Honor: Underground once again DGG said it better than me. Ikip 00:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. It's all said above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12 facts from 12 sources or 12 facts from a 1 source are both the exact same depth of coverage based on my infinite knowledge of mathematics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is evidently notable as there are numerous high-quality sources for it such as A Parents Guide to Playstation Games. The renomination seems vexatious per WP:DEL and WP:NOTAGAIN. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your so-called exemplar does not actually have an entry for the topic; it is (like all the other sources) a passing reference to the topic. --EEMIV (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a passing reference as the character is central to the game, not incidental. The level of coverage seems enough to establish notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, really: look at it. The book mentions her, identifies that she makes pastries for the soldiers or something, and then moves on to describe the gameplay. It IDs the player's avatar and moves on. Protagonist or not, the character in none of these sources receives little more than fleeting name-confirmation. She really just doesn't matter at all. --EEMIV (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already looked at it and am satisfied that the content is adequate for our purposes. There don't seem to be any pastries - perhaps you're seeing a different edition. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noteable article which following improvements contains a good ammount of real world information on the character. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sourced content to satisfy the GNG, and no significant justification given for revisiting the prior, extensively argued deletion discussion. We should have better things to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A fictionalized version of a notable WWII spy Hélène Deschamps Adams; this article adds to that one, and improves it. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 20:13, 27 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) 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking System[edit]

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

This article appears to fail the general notability guideline; there does not seem to be substantial coverage (or, indeed, any coverage at all) in reliable sources as defined here.

On the article's talk page, Foxyfan argues that the article should be kept to correct misinformation on the band in the German Wikipedia. This article, so she says, has the information on the band right.

I am neither endorsing nor opposing deletion now, but rather asking the community's opinion. Ucucha 16:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails WP:MUSIC. Armbrust (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 00:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Systems in Blue. The band worked with that group, I think there would be put this real info. --MisterWiki talk contribs 01:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why should it be merged or redirected to Systems in Blue. As i can tell there are no connection between them. Armbrust (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable. --MisterWiki talk contribs 22:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 02:06, 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, despite the hordes of WP:SPAs, who seemed unfamiliar with policy and notability guidelines. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Iorio[edit]

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

Non-notable scientist. Article mostly a list of his works. The biography part is unsorced. ospalh (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I do not agree with Ospalh. Indeed, if this article will be deleted, the same should also be done for many other articles concerning lots of other physicists, not necessarily italian. Just take a look around. Many third-parties links to several independent sources citing Iorio's works are displayed. It is not true that the biographical part is unsorced because all the information contained in it come from Iorio's personal homepage and can easily be checked. If you are nor satisfied with that, note that also the bigraphical information of other physicists having articles here should be retained unsorced. asteraX99 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) — AsteraX99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs massive cleanup so it doesn't read like a CV/praise article, but his English CV ([17]) cites several third-party mentions, at least one of which has Mr. Iorio's research as the primary subject. To me that means he qualifies under WP:BIO. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I agree with AsteraX99 and Kuyabribri. There are several wiki articles on other physicists that basically do not contain any verifiable information concerning their lifes and, especially, their research activities and publications, so it would be absurd to delete just this one. I must admit that I find the overall tone not particularly Iorio-oriented. It is rather impartial and it describes well his research activity.

Personally, I do not find reasons to remove his publications. On the contrary, I would invite contributors to do the same also for the other physicists listed here. Anyway, suggestions on how to fruitfully improve this page are certainly welcome. 775Jeanstar1 (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) — 775Jeanstar1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Basically, I do not see sound reasons to delete this well-detailed page. Unless one decides that only Newton, Einstein, Planck, etc. must have their place here, this article is well-suited for the scopes of WikiPedia. Certainly, it can be amended and improved, but it should not be deleted in my opinion. Black_90745 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC) — Black_90475 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]
Keep. Many of the prior arguments for keeping are weak, as they're based essentially on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Let me provide a more objective argument on the basis of citations. WoS shows 93 peer-reviewed papers, with citations 31, 30, 24, 23, ... for an h-index of 13. I know this can be considered a borderline number, but I will further point out that almost all his papers have a very small author list (lots are just single-authored by him), so it's a safe assumption that these represent his contributions, rather than just a "coattail notability". Second, the citation numbers do not decay very quickly, e.g. the 20th highest paper still has 9 citations and the 60th highest still has 1 citation. Consequently, his overall body of scientific work has had a demonstrable impact. For those who want to double-check, the WoS query I used was "Author=(Iorio L*) Refined by: Subject Areas=(ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS OR PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY OR PHYSICS, NUCLEAR OR PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS OR PHYSICS, MATHEMATICAL) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The quantitative arguments by Agricola44 are welcome, but, for me, even without them, it is clear that this article, which I contributed to, should be kept because it refers to a scientist whose production is quite transparent adn widely available throughout the net. And his notability should clearly appear from the links inserted. Thank you Citator (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC) — Citator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. With all due respect, you are arguing from a very ~~week~~ weak position. All modern scientists' contributions are widely available through the net – this is entirely irrelevant to a notability assessment. Have a look at WP:PROF to see what criteria matter in this type of debate. The article is littered with red-links, so that is also not a good posture. In fact, this article is in dire need of clean-up and I would expect much, if not most of the material to be resected – right now it's basically a CV. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
~~Weak Keep Neutral~~ Delete per Agricola44. GS h index is 15 so is barely notable according to WP:Prof #1. The arguments presented by the red links are implausable. The article is far too long and should be cut down to half a dozen lines. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The only plausible argument for notability that I have seen so far is based on citation count and h-index. I would want to see either some additional evidence of passing WP:PROF (prestigious awards, journal editorships, etc) or a significantly more impressive citation count, in order to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ For example, he is one of the board members of The Open Astronomy Journals (TOAJ). Anyway, some people mix the deletion and the improvement issues. One thing is asking for an improvemnt of the article, another thing is asking for its deletion which, in my opinion, is an untenable request, also because the WP:PROF points are far from being objective Citator (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not vote more than once. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  - Ok. I am sorry, but I did not realize that my comment could be considered as a second vote. Regards. Citator (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comments aren't considered second votes. Rather, you put "keep" in both your comments. Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I struck the second vote to make the revote more apparent to the closing admin. Although, that's hardly the most problematic conduct in this AfD... —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zillator (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)— Zillator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the apparent sockpuppet infestation, there seems little actual basis for keeping this article. His citation record is insufficiently strong to make a convincing case for WP:PROF #1, a news search turns up one NewScientist story, not enough by itself for WP:GNG, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a vanity page. Little evidence this person actually passes WP:PROF. It's suspicious when they list every little thing (like refereeing papers for journals, being demanded as a supervisor from foreign students, as these apply to pretty much any prof).--24.201.13.148 (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep I note that some of the criticisms raised here have been dealt with: the red links have been removed. It has been noted that L. Iorio is member of the editorial board of The Open Astronomy Journal, its h number has been discussed. Moreover, it has also been included in an issue of Scientific American and some international newspapers and scientific magazines. His workds appear in several bibliographic databases of various academic institutions. He also received some awards. In my opinion, this is enough concerning WP:PROF, also because, all in all, such criteria are far from being objective and strictly quantitative. Anyway, they are certainly not met for several other physicists listed here. I also note that the tone of some contributors to such a discussion is not neutral and sounds to be a priori biased against him, as if they had decided since the beginning to delete this page because they have the power to do so, contrary to other users. Some of them seem to be scholars as well; maybe some form of (un)conscious envy is present in them. Also the good faith of those who want to keep this page is suspect to such people. Merry Christmas to all PaxUniversalis (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)— PaxUniversalis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Open Astronomy Journal published a grand total of 2 papers in 2008[18] (both by the members of its own editorial advisory board, by the way) and a grand total of 16 papers in 2009. Its editorial advisory board consists of almost 90 people, Iorio being one of them [19]. They are listed without e-mails, postal addresses or institutional affiliations, always a bad sign in my experience. The journal does not have an impact factor and, after some GoogleScholar searching, I was not able to find any papers citing research published in the journal, except for one paper that had 3 citations[20]. So far all these factors indicate a rather low quality journal to me. Nsk92 (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a comment clearly demonstrates that Nsk92 has little competence to judge on topics like that, and that he/she is a-priori biased against Iorio. Indeed, the affiliations and the emails of the members of the editorial board of TOAJ can easily be retrieved online by searching for them. Moreover, among them there are well-renown scientists in their field, starting from the Honorable Editor Ellis but not limiting to him. The statistics by TOAJ are simply due to the fact that it has recently been launched and that, of course, years have to pass. PaxUniversalis (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Among the various press-releases there is also one in Physics World. Moreover, a simple search on the Internet shows that Iorio's works are often cited and discussed in several blogs and forums, contrary to other physicists whose pages are present in Wikipedia and are not subject to deletion PaxUniversalis (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please someone should chek if those users (PaxUniversalis, Zillator, Black_90745, 775Jeanstar1 AsteraX99) are sockpuppets. In it.wiki we had some problems with Iorio as source of (minor) criticism. --Ignlig (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Here are a sockpuppet farm in it.wiki --Ignlig (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concerning WP:PROF, I noted that New Scientist has included Iorio's works twice in his articles: simply go to the search box of New Scientist page and put the word Iorio. Moreover, also Scientific American dedicted one article to a Iorio's work. The same for the German edition of GEO (magazine) and Welt der Physik (even if you do not speak German, simply put Iorio in the search box and you will find two articles dedicated to him). Moreover, also the Danish magazine Ingeniøren has dedicated an article to him. The same for the Italian newspaper La Repubblica. Another point: Iorio passes the WP:PROF criterion 3 since he is member of the internationally recognized and prestigious INFN, of the Royal Astronomical Society and of the Italian Physical Society. Moreover, he has been a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Also WP:PROF criterion 2 is met since he received a prestigious national prize from the Italian Physical Society (SIF). He also received a prize from the International Volta Center. Regards. PaxUniversalis (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding memberships in various societies that you mentioned: for WP:PROF#3 it is not sifficient to be a regular member, but it is needed to be an elected member or fellow. If Iorio is one of these, you need to provide a verifiable reference. Similarly, you need to provide a reference for him being a fellow of AAAS (again, it would need to be an elected fellow). Similarly, you need to provide verifiable references for him having received the prizes you mention. About the New Scientist story: I followed your suggestion and looked up the New Scientist article, "Loner stakes claim to gravity prize"[21]. Apparently, Iorio made a fairly sensational claim to have found measurable experimental evidence for the Lense-Thirring effect from general relativity. The New Scientist article mentions skeptical reception of this claim by other scientists:The result has intrigued the Gravity Probe B team. James Overduin, a team member at Stanford University, California, likes Iorio's idea but remains sceptical about the details. "Experimental claims of this importance need to be supported by rigorous error analysis, and it's far from clear that this new [work] by Iorio meets that standard," he says. "A more serious treatment would be of significant interest." To the extent Iorio's claim has been checked by other scientists, their conclusions about his claim seem to be basically negative and to say that Iorio's methods and analysis were incorrect: [22][23][24]. To quote from the abstract of the first of these:"this confirmation of general relativity was obtained by misinterpreting the MGS data and then altering a key time period". While negative coverage is coverage, I don't think it is what WP:PROF#1 has in mind. Nsk92 (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is certainly not the right place to judge about the validity or not of scientific works of individuals. Coverage is coverage, and, as you admit, interpretation of WP:PROF is purely subjective. Anyway, it seems that your position is biased against Iorio and is not impartial enough because you quote two unpublished preprints by negelcted people who have not published anything, but you do not cite the latest published paper by Iorio on the MGS stuff: see [25] in Central European Journal of Physics which is a journal with Frank Wilczek, Nobel laureate, in its editorial board. PaxUniversalis (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What counts for establishing notability here is coverage by independent sources (meaning written by people other than the subject of the article himself). This is a basic principle of WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:PROF and of all other notability guidelines. For these purposes self-citations by Iorio himself do not count and what matters is what other scientists write about his work. If you find papers by other scholars (not authored or co-authored by Iorio) confirming his claims, that would certainly change things. Nsk92 (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a fellow of the AAAS would be enough for me to change my vote to keep. However, it appears to be false: I searched the AAAS fellows listing for all fellows whose name begins with I, and he wasn't there. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By citing non-approriately and non-pertinently to this context those unpublished preprints you unadvertitely yield a biased vision of the MGS issue shedding shadows on your impartiality. Anyway, you can simply go to the NASA ADS database and look for the papers written by other people citing his papers on MGS.

Invoking the fact that other scientists should write papers confirming his findings does not matter here: it is a strictly scientific question, and Wikipedia is not a venue for that. Generally speaking, look carefully at the list of external links in the Wikipedia article on Lorenzo Iorio: you will find lot of stuff, so that one can avoid to insert here one link at a time. For example, there is one in Portuguese on the Pioneer Anomaly [26]. Or you can look at Sky and Telescope, july 2006, pag. 20. Unfortunately, it seems that the server of ST does not work properly now, but the ST article on Iorio is cited in [27]. Anyway, I found the original documents concerning Iorio's prizes and associations and I inserted them in the article. Please note that Iorio is an elected Fellow of RAS and was an elected Fellow of AAAS. Concerning SIMCA, he is Socio Ordinario (Ordinary Member): the category of ordinary Members is reserved for distinguished professionals, while the one of Soci Straordinari (Extraordinary Members) refers to all other people simply interested in space machanics PaxUniversalis (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that, among the various external links in the Iorio's article in Wikipedia there is one that shows that one paper of him was included in the category "Papers which might be of interest for science writers, for public information officers and for the press media and which will be forwarded to the Press Officer" of one EGU assembly [28]. PaxUniversalis (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Iorio's works are included also in the Technology blog by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 79.12.5.146 (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the list of the External links I note that also the page by Dr. Kasia Malek discusses a recently published paper by Iorio. PaxUniversalis (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, this article meet several WP:PROF criteria. However, note that they are not completely objective, as stated in the WP:PROF page itself. Anyway, a work by Dr. Iorio has been the subject of the Institute of Physics general magazine Physics World [29]. He also appear in seevral bibliographic databases of prestigious international insitutions like Aspera European Astroparticle network (ASPERA) maintained by CERN. 876Xilli (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added two links to blogs dealing with the anomalous perihelion precession of Saturn which should contribute to enforce the WP:PROF points. Moreover, in the previous list of external links I noted that he is present also in one SISSA database; SISSA is certainly a prestigious international institution. Also the MIT Technology Review Blog deals with a Iorio's work on the Pioneer Anomaly [30] 876Xilli (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:V and WP:RS more carefully: blogs and discussion forums do not qualify as reliable sources; neither is inclusion in various bibliographic databases significant for establishing notability. What counts for establishing academic impact is the discussion of Iorio's work in published work of other scientists. That's what you should be looking for. Nsk92 (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is turning into a mess of links and publications farm, i.e. a massive attempt at overpromotion. Quantity over actual quality. I don't think it's helping the case for keeping.--24.201.13.148 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds strange: some people demand higher standards of verifiable information meeting the WP:PROF criteria, and when other people improve the article adding such required information or discuss that already present in the article and missed by some critics, there somebody who criticizes this information appears and says that including too much information concerning the notability, etc. is overpromotion... 876Xilli (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: take a look at the following articles: Charles K. Kao, Willard Boyle, Toshihide Maskawa, Yoichiro Nambu, etc. or any other Nobel laureates in Physics. They are all objectively more notable than Iorio, and none consists of long publication lists or attempts to overcompensate for lack of actual notability following the guidelines. If Iorio passed WP:PROF, all you'd need was a handful of cites from reliable secondary sources.--24.201.13.148 (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added more required verifiable information about some claims made in the article, as required. As somebody else has already noted in this discussion, if only Nobel laureates should be included in Wikipedia, very few articles to physicists should be included in Wikipedia. It seems a very weak argument to me in favor of a deletion. 876Xilli (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let us analize the points of WP:PROF having in mind all the caveats, etc. of that page:

1) The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

This point has been addressed by other people here also with quantitative paramters. In my opinion, this point is met, also in consideration of the field of research of Mr. Iorio and of the already noted fact that he is the sole author of most of his works. Anyway, as the WP:PROF page itself clarifies, such quantitative criteria are not so quantitative as too often one beleves. Anyway, look at databases like NASA ADS to see the citations scored by Iorio. For me one cannot say that criterion 1 is not met.

2) The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Also this point is met, as it has been proven

3) The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)

Again, the criterion is met, as it has been pointed out by others here and as it has been proven.

4) The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

In my opinion, Iorio met this criterion: he has been invited as lecturer at an International School in Brasil and he is editor of a book on gravitomagnetism including contributions from experts in the field.

7) The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

The media coverage has been exhaustively shown: no local newspapers are involved, but several international magazines and newspapers, blogs, etc. (on the Internet there is even more stuff than that listed here and in the article)

8) The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.

He is a board member of a recently estabilished journal which includes in the editorial board several notable scientists in the field.

All in all, I think that if on one side an improvement of the article is certainly desirable, on the other one a deletion would be inappropriate. StarryingMatter87 (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above account, User:StarryingMatter87, has been registered today. Among its edits is a creation of a new article citing Iorio's work [31]. Nsk92 (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem? Indeed, in preparing my article on the Gravitomagnetic Clock Effect I came across some references of him. I retrieved them from this article which I found useful. I do not understand why I should have not insert them in my article StarryingMatter87 (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning point 7), I discovered an article by Sky and Telescope and added it. StarryingMatter87 (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe determined effort to make this person look notable is absolutely baffling. However, the citation rates don't lie: his work has not had any major influence yet. Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:PROF. Article in urgent need of stubbifying, one of the worst I have seen in a long time... --Crusio (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, Dr. Crusio seems to be not aware of the differences existing between his field of research and the one in which the individual of this article is involved, so that, in my opinion, it is wrong to use criteria which may be valid in a field, but not in another one. And such criteria are far from being objective, as WP:PROF page itself clearly shows. Moreover, his so harsh words sound a bit inapproriate, given that it cannot certainly be stated that Dr. Crusio makes every effort to pass unnoticed here in Wikipedia...876Xilli (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

876Xilli, stop it now! You should read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If you persist with personal attacks, you can be blocked from editing. Nsk92 (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize with Dr. Crusio and I hope he did not feel offended because it was not my intention. 876Xilli (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following article can shed some light on the h-index [32] and shows the differences among the various fields of research. 876Xilli (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I filed a sockpuppetry investigation case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/asteraX99 Nsk92 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity article about nn scientist who fails WP:PROF. Any reputable scientist of his age would have a similar-looking track record but that doesn't make him notable. andy (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not agree with andy; it is not true that other reputable researchers of his age active in his field have a similar track. For me, WP:PROF are generally met: perhaps, points 4, 5 and 6 are not so good as the other ones, but I would not delete this article. Greetings. Gravitom (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC) — Gravitom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. andy (talk) 12:05, 29 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) 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Einy Shah[edit]

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

Fails our Notability guidelines for people. Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons of questionable notability: ~~:Bridget Minamore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ [reply]

Keep, speedy close without prejudice to separate nominations. Four BLPs should be discussed individually, not en masse, absent much closer ties than these four have. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: created discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridget Minamore, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kawsar Zaman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attia Al-Iqtadar TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can see no evidence of notability atm 92.20.111.198 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Laughably non-notable. Most likely authored by Ms Shah herself, as suggested on her twitter page. (User talk:jm6852) 13:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment official Twitter reads "Genuinely still laughing at the fact that someone wrote me an article on Wikipedia! Asked for it to be removed but it seems they're on hols!" "On a serious note, I've written to wiki. Most of us don't want to be on it," in case of a no consensus. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. But did get mentioned for her a-level results on the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8211991.stm). Westminister Uni [sic] Francium12 00:40, 31 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 deleted per category g7 (blanked by author) by User:Willking1979. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel-Darren Charles[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 article has been speedied three times but this incarnation is not speedable IMO. This said, its notability assertion rests on a TV show that is currently prodded, The Catch-Up Night. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete: fails WP:ENT miserably. Only listing on IMDB for this person is "Cow #1" in a production of "Gypsy"...send him to the article slaughterhouse. WuhWuzDat 15:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this and The Catch-Up Night, self-promotion for nonnotable young actor. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Catch-Up Night is as good as gone... Prod expiring tomorrow, 2 Speedy criteria against it as well. Let it be. Ham tech person 16:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) Delete Possible G11 violation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamtechperson (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do you people not have anything better to do than to insult me and make me out as a lier???!! --Daniel-darren charles (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)— Daniel-darren charles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dan Charles is an actor from barrow-in-furness which is where i am from also. he is very well known and respected here. I do not know him myself but I have seen is work on the television. and he also came back to our town to turn on the xmas lights. This article should not be deleted. --JayFrostBarrow (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)— JayFrostBarrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wait wait wait wait. You're saying we should keep this article because he turned on your Christmas lights? So do I get on Wikipedia because I set up my grandparents' Christmas tree? --Smashville^talk 17:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shit dude, I'd have a featured article on myself by now! TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cant speak for the catch up night as i do not no who or what that is. --JayFrostBarrow (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC) — JayFrostBarrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Here is The Catch-Up Night fan page on facebook. it has around 800 fan's already and that amounts growing everyday (http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Catch-Up-Night/108010677130?ref=ts)

you can also find photos of the show and vids on there to... --Daniel-darren charles (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)— Daniel-darren charles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see anything at all that grants notability. (And is it just me, or does part of this discussion resemble part of the top drawer of my dresser.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 17:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A load of socks is currently in the laundry. WuhWuzDat 17:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet any inclusionary guidelines. Also getting socky in here. --Smashville^talk 17:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not somewhere for unnotable actors to store their damn CV, its an encyclopedia Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save - and no am not saying that at all.. what i an saying is, if he is good enough and well known enough to turn on our lights in front of 10,000 people, (that let me add.. all know his name) how come he is not good enough for a page on wikipedia?? obviously there is people that look him up and want to find out more about him! --JayFrostBarrow (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)— JayFrostBarrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Find references on yourself and prove that you meet WP:BIO. People seeing you turn on your lights is quite honestly the lamest claim to notability I've ever heard. My cat can turn on the lights. --Smashville^talk 19:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dont delete I have heard of Daniel. he is currently in a salad cream advert on TV haha. --Geekyemma (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)— Geekyemma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What is a salad cream? Salad dressing or topical cream? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

heinz salad cream is salad dressing but can be used as lots of things. i like it on chips =) --Geekyemma (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds yummy! TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD has taken a very bizarre turn. --Smashville^talk 20:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It Is! =D lol. But I do think wikipdia should keep this. just because some of you dont know who he is, dont mean everyone dosent no him. ive never met the lad in my life, but he is doing well for himself and I have also seen him on tv. --Geekyemma (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not I've heard of him is irrelevant - its whether he demonstrably passes the notability threshold, which as yet he does not. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure that Heinz salad cream is wonderful on chips, but that aside, this actor is not yet notable. Furthermore, this article is somewhat written as if to be a CV. Facebook accounts don't enter into the argument, they aren't reliable at all. Good luck on Mr. Charles for getting up there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my argument so i dont what to carry on with this. but he IS notable, people know who he is! ok he is not brad pitt famous but none the less people know who he is. which means people have an intrest in him and given time the article WILL get biger!!! --Geekyemma (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

am over this now: i wouldn't of made the dam thing if i new it would cores this much trouble lol. oh and Happy Christmas everyone haha. --Daniel-darren charles (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not notable. And agree with Smashville - the smell of socks in this case is almost overpowering. Orderinchaos 10:02, 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 Keep Around half of the delete comments were grounded in unpersuasive cruft arguements. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters and wildlife in Avatar[edit]

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

Entirely regurgitates plot -- either from the primary source or from non-independent supplementary texts. No claim of real-world notability, negligible citations to third-party sources. Fails to offer encyclopedic treatment. Unnecessary fork from content sufficiently and appropriately covered at Avatar (2009 film). --EEMIV (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extensive use of incorrect terminologies in your comment: 'entirely regurgitates', 'fails encyclopedic treatment', 'unnecessary fork' and 'sufficiently covered at Avatar (2009 film)'. Please go through and note that the use of these terms are your own personal 'viewpoints and beliefs' and doesn't accurately reflect the actual quality of this article.bhuto (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Fancruft! Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Fancruft: "Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip 20:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Wrong Reason/Comment As pointed out by Ikip, please read the Fancruft article thoroughly. Fancruft is no reason for an article to be deleted. Instead it is the unencyclopedic behavior of the article, for which it is deleted.bhuto (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but reclaim any useful character information which can be added to the main article. KaySL (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be merge/redirect, as I suggest. Ikip 20:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a lot of materials, include it within the main article will dramatically change the shape of the current article. Not doable. Yug (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As Yug suggested, it will be difficult and inappropriate to merge this vast and minute details of the large world of Pandora, and hence a separate article is very much unavoidable. bhuto (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP This article is highly pertinent, it is Pandora's fauna that defeat the humans whilst the flora form a neural network that covers the entire planet. As for it being "fancruft" so what ? Have you people even seen the great number of Star Trek ? Star Wars ? and Star Gate articles on Wikipedia ? Wikipedia has an article on every single episode of Star Trek ! What about the Simpsons ? - each episode has its own article. If this article cannot stay on Wikipedia then you might as well get rid of the articles on Vulcan and Klingon - they too are articles on fictional worlds. With two more planned sequels, this article's importance will continue to grow. Just because somebody doesn't like the article is no reason to redirect or delete it. If you don't like it, don't read it. Tovojolo (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid keep reason, and except for the episodes most of those are covered in reliable, THIRD-PARTY sources. Wikipedia does no operate on potential future notability, and consider how long it took him to make this film, planned sequels are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not here to provide a haven for fans to put all the minute details of the "fauna and flora" of a fictional world from a single film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a valid reason to delete. If the episodes weren't, have you considered deleting those?? You said - Wikipedia is not a haven.....from a single film. Would you have considered, had it been from three films?? Your reasons don't seem to make any justifiable sense. You may not consider this to be a 'haven for fans', but like it or not - in one way or the other IT IS. bhuto (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." Ikip 20:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, certainly agree with Ikip, until third-party citations are not provided.

Delete consensus on the talk page already supported redirecting it to the main article, but its creator and User:Dream Focus refused to accept that consensus and continued to restore it with false claims that it is needed to provide more plot information on the film. Completely fails WP:N, and purely a repeat of the film plot and original research. Nothing even links to this article. It is purely a hidden article for fan's to put in their pet theories about the film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus. Many people were against the redirect. Most post were done the same day, within a short period of time. You tried to redirect the talk page, without giving people enough time to communicate, and others to join in the discussion. Dream Focus 19:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three people versus eight is more than enough consensus and no one tried to redirect the talk page. Do not tell lies just to try to boost your unstable position. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, more than that were against the redirects, and as someone already pointed out on the talk page, you did not have eight people for it. And assume good faith. Don't go accusing others of lies. Dream Focus 19:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lie is a lie, and that was a blatant one. Don't tell me to assume good faith while stating falsehoods about actions I made and claiming I tried to stifle discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not tell lies" WP:CIVIL please. Ikip 20:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AnmaFinotera is requested to check her behavior and her counting. Go back and check the Talk Page and count on a piece of paper, the number of people who were against the redirects. What DreamFocus said is absolutely the truth and not 'a blatant lie' as claimed by you. Your own words on the Talk Page had mentioned seven (whereas it should have been six) and here you say eight. You are contradicting your own statements. I am sorry to reveal, but as a matter of fact - you actually do stifle discussions. This very page itself reflects the number of people interested in the existence of this article. bhuto (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said on the talk page, I see it as a valid content split, there valid information that won't fit in the main article. [33] I searched the news archives for the word "Avatar" and then any of the names of the creatures from the film. I see a lot of mentions in the news about this movie, and they all seem to always mention some of the creatures in the film. I think that proves they are clearly notable. The creatures are also mentioned in reviews about the video game based on the film. The three books published about the movie include them as well. I added a bit to the article from the MTV news interview with James Cameron. They stated the creatures were the main reason people were excited about the film, discussing the scene with the dinosaur creature chasing after the main character, in great detail.[34] Dream Focus 19:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People mentioning the names is not notability. Of course they will be mentioned while giving a synopsis of the film. As usual, you have not provided a single reliable source giving significant coverage of this topic, and rather just throw out google hits and claim that's enough. Three books published by the makes of the film are reliable sources but do not add to notability as no one can make their own notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect with Avatar. Ikip 19:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible. It'd just end in delete. No way to fit all that content over there, which is why a side article is important. The amount of press coverage on how the creatures were made, and going into detail about them, should be enough coverage to convince people of notability. Dream Focus 20:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of extraterrestrial life in Alien Planet. Seems to be similar in both the positive and negative respects.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your response was gratifying. :-) I'm waiting to see whether anyone uses it to support keeping this article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ because no effort was made to establish real-world context for these details of a fictional topic. Avatar (2009 film) has plenty of room to develop that context for such details, but the article violated WP:PLOT and WP:WAF from the get-go. Work should be done within the film article, and if there happens to be more than enough information about the conception, design, and realization of such elements, then I would instead recommend a Design in Avatar article. In the meantime, there is nothing to salvage here. Erik (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is my preference now that I have overhauled the article to have real-world context. I still maintain that the split was unwarranted and that the context can exist at the main film article. There is an argument that existing toys and a video game warrant this split, but there has never been much more to say about fictional elements when it comes to these. "These creatures appeared in the video game adaptation of the film. Like in the film, a player can ride some of them." There is not much more to be said that can't be explored in-context at the video game article itself. Erik (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very reasonable content split. I assume that some of the reviews of the film have talked about some of the characters. If it's more than just listing them, that's RW notability. . To avoid problems, I advise not trying to make pages on individual characters even if sources would technically justify it . Rather, people should make pages such as this. I point out that such is the only reasonable hope for compromise, especially as the film project still is trying to maintain their idiosyncratic guideline against more than cursory mention of characters in film main articles. The actual question is not how to arrange these, or divide them into articles, but whether we should have reasonably full content. I consider afds such as this a test on whether there is willingness to accept compromise. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC) .[reply]

First, we can see on Wikipedia that there are Featured Articles about real-life figures. We do not see Featured Articles about fictional figures that outline their entire biography as presented in the fictional work(s). We see Featured Articles about planets in our universe but not fictional planets in fictional universes as if they were real. We see the same when it comes to fauna and flora. Per WP:WAF, there needs to be a real-world perspective; we are not supposed to reiterate the in-universe perspective, as it is being done here. WikiProject Films acknowledges the need for real-world context; if the analyzing sources are there, we can pull together content. There is no such effort with this article, which is grounded in primary sourcing. As I mentioned in my !vote above, effort should have been made on the film article itself. The film article is the main article on the matter, and we have yet to stretch its size with real-world context. If we can do so, we can do sub-articles like Visual effects in Avatar and Design in Avatar. We cannot automatically assume that a sub-article, especially one as badly written and sourced as this, is necessary. The film article needs to grow as we make contributions, and we can prune it accordingly into sub-articles for easier digestion. Erik (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are featured articles about fictional figures. Bulbasaur was once a featured article, listed on the main page. The film article is quite large already, it best to keep some things in a side article. And no one cares what a WikiProject does, those things always just a handful of people that argue nonstop to get their way, and drive others from them. Also, whether you think something is badly written or not, is not a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 03:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Featured Articles about fictional figures that that outline their entire biography as presented in the fictional work(s). If Featured Articles about fictional figures exist, they are written with a real-world perspective. The point is that this article fails to do so, and the effort should begin at the film article and branch out from there if necessary. Erik (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a Featured Article review and such articles, by their nature, are exceptional as we can't feature everything. In order for an article to be deleted, we must instead satisfy ourself that the topic is at the other extreme - utterly hopeless. This is not the case here and so deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't need a page devoted entirely to retelling us the plot in such minute detail that we don't even need to watch the film. Wikipedia is not a substitute for watching the movie. In addition, the page is a clear violation of WP:WAF, borders violating WP:NOR, definite issue of WP:UNDUE, not to mention WP:PLOT. Any real world information is likely going to be pertaining directly to the film, or covered on the film page in general. A brief mentioning about a character in a review of the film doesn't meet the notability criteria for "significant coverage", and unless it can be established that there is such an abundance of real world information about each of these characters that it cannot possibly be covered on the Avatar film page, then there is no reason to have this page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for real world mention, did anyone watch the link I added to the article about the behinds the scenes thing shown legally on Hulu? Information on how the Banshee was done, would be fascinating for a section of this article I believe. The creatures get plenty of coverage, this setting the standards for what is now possible, and changing the industry forever. They are quite revolutionary. Dream Focus 03:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better in a "Design" section at Avatar (2009 film), which no one has attempted. There is room to spare. I also recommend citing the book The Art of Avatar to support such a section. That way, we can build up a real-world perspective of fictional elements and not abuse the primary sources so much. Erik (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: nice summary about a interesting imaginary world. There are sources available, and lot of things to describe -like one delete/merging supporters admit-. Merging will not be that easy, since it will dramatically change the main article (Avatar (2009 film))'s shape => keep. Yug (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia do not "summarize" imaginary worlds not at this length without real-world context. The article is grounded in primary sourcing, written like the people and the flora and fauna really exist. You are making the fallacious assumption that this sub-article should exist outside of the main article about the film; there is little precedent for such splitting for a single film. Effort should be made first at the film article, where it can be shaped accordingly. This will not "dramatically" change the article, as you exaggerate; wildlife can be identified in a "Design" section, and their conception, design, and realization can be detailed. Erik (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, You don't own what wikipedia do and don't do, and should not state "Wikipedia do not ..." : Wikipedia is FUNDAMENTALLY based on the community's consensus. You use fake arguments, make assumptions on my views, and yes : include the full content (3xA4) of this article into Avatar (2009_film) will unbalance it, unless we accept large content deletion. --Yug (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ecosystem of this setting is notable and has been compared to Star Wars in its richness. Deletion will not assist us in covering the notable topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the word "notable" incorrectly here. All these elements are known as part of the main topic, the film itself. Visual effects is another such commonly-reviewed part of the film, but we accommodate details about that just fine in that article. There can be a "Design" section that uses secondary sources to describe the real-world context of these elements. Erik (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my usage. The main article upon the film is already too large at 76K. We have spin-off articles for the music and the game and this article seems a fine complement to these, providing a good framework for the ecological background. This is, as I have stated, a notable topic. Here, for example, is a substantial source which discusses the botany of the setting. This is just a fraction of the material which we must consider and cover. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where this article's content should be. One editor said Avatar was like Star Wars; well, let this be Cameron's Wookieepedia! That way, we can get back to writing encyclopedic content. Erik (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, don't play with concepts: we are not talking about accepting 72,000 Avatar relate articles, we are talking about one summary article. I agree with User:A Nobody comments : "per Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state". Stop this now means to rely on article Avatar (2009 film)'s section "Cast and characters" who talk mainly about real actors, and have about 5 sentences really about Avatar's world. Quite harsh for a such raising topic (Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built). Yug (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's enough coverage on this film to have 10s of articles that pass the GNG. This is a reasonable (and small) start. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy, Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, Wikipedia:There is no deadline, Wikipedia:What Isn't Grounds for Article Deletion, etc. due to the subject attracting mainstream coverage in reliable sources. See for example Entertainment Weekly #1081 (December 18, 2009) for an article alluded to on its cover "James Cameron on Avatar" with a picture of the main female Na'vi. The seven page long article includes a feature called "8 Things You Need to Know About Avatar" on page 48 of the magazine for which I happen to have a subscription. This listing includes various out of universe development information such as "3. Cameron gave the Na'vi feline features to make them more relatable," as well as other comments about the Na'vi and Pandora. Such information is easily integrated into the article to provide reliably sourced out of universe context that per WP:PRESERVE is at worst mergeable. And that is just scratching the surface of what that and other sources possess. Even HBO on demand has a making of documentary with out of universe discussion of the fictional elements of the film. HBO and Entertainment Weekly and not some kind of niche media. Nor does one need to go to the end of the Earth to find such resources. This movie, which has grossed hundreds of millions of dollars and has therefore been seen by millions worldwide, has already also been adapted to a video game with coutless buyers. Put simply, the idea that aspects of something for which millions of people around the world have seen is not "real world notable" and for which non-fansites cover and discuss the details of this work of fiction in an out of universe manner is not reasonable. Finally, there is no dire or pressing need to delete something that is not a hoax, not libelous, nor a copy vio. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid content split. What happened to the human section while i was gone?username 1 (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup once the furor has died down. Why the rush to take things to AfD, really? By the time the dust settles, there will be a number of reliable secondary sources about the topic. No, I don't have a crystal ball, but the media coverage of Avatar is substantial, extensive, and ongoing. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article seriously needs cleanup (copyediting and sourcing) but its concept is valid, and it's a good content spin-out as pointed out above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. For people who claim it has not verifiable sources - the information is found in magazines and also in the two books released as merchandise for this film. Over a period of time the article sections will be cited appropriately. bhuto (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article may need cleanup but the content can be found all over internet from official and third party sources.Also some spelling issues must be resolved.
Strong Delete, I'm sorry, why does a single film need to have an article devoted to non-culturally relevant characters and "wildlife". Sure the film is notable, but not so much the characters. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is NOT a single film, but also a multiplatform video game, etc. Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora, a 224-page book in the form of a field guide to the film's fictional setting of the planet of Pandora, was released by Harper Entertainment on November 24, 2009. Thus, the characters are verifiable through multiple reliable sources and appear in a film, video game, and even as action figures, etc. seen/played by millions of people worldwide. That is notable by both the Wikipedic definition and by the common sense standard. Characters that can be seen on screen, read about in a book as well as in reviews/previews, and played in a video game and as toys are unquestionably culturally relevant. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely agree with A Nobody. He has made a very good and useful point. bhuto (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple aspects of the film are starting to get serious amounts of significant discussion in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is completely useless - relevant info already in the main article on Avatar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.204.34 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A reasonable fork of a daughter article from a parent one. If merged, this information (especially once worked up and completed) would swamp the original in a quite inappropriate manner. The subject matter is notable. It's a keeper. --Dweller (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. I tried to include the wildlife of Pandora in the Characters list on the main page of AVATAR and someone kept deleting it. I thought of making a new article just for that and someone did it already. The wildlife in Pandora is very important for the movie Avatar including its plot. This article should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedannayya (talk • contribs) 22:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge After reading all of the comments here I believe the article is not needed. The actual film article isn't that large and if there was any useful information in this article it could be moved over there. Relating this article to the world of Star Wars is a bit of a stretch seeing how that universe consists of a plethora of movies and books and this is only one movie. Many of the sources currently on the article are from a fansite (Pandorapedia) which is not a reputable source. There was a comment made that they're are not many sources for this information and that the article should be kept but then that just means there won't be any sources to use. A nice concise copy of the information could be simply added to the main article. --Peppage^tlk 16:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that it is NOT a single film, but also a multiplatform video game, etc. Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora, a 224-page book in the form of a field guide to the film's fictional setting of the planet of Pandora, was released by Harper Entertainment on November 24, 2009. Thus, the characters are verifiable through multiple reliable sources and appear in a film, video game, and even as action figures, etc. seen/played by millions of people worldwide. That is notable by both the Wikipedic definition and by the common sense standard. Characters that can be seen on screen, read about in a book as well as in reviews/previews, and played in a video game and as toys are unquestionably culturally relevant. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did read where you wrote that up there. I was just mentioning that when compared to Star Wars information there is no comparison. I kinda assumed that video game information would go on the video game article, since it has its own page. The characters exist, I got it. Still doesn't mean the information shouldn't go on the main film article. There are still bad references on the page, perhaps the action figures should be used as a reference. --Peppage ^tlk 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peppage, I do not believe that Pandorapedia is a fan site. This shows that the registrant is 20th Century Fox. In any case, such in-universe descriptions can be located in the "Confidential Report" book A_Nobody mentioned. I've done my best to keep such descriptions belief and to add real-world context. Erik (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but it sure looks like a fan site. I really expect sites for movies to be professional. This looks like something I could write in a few hours. I hope that the book is used for future references on this article. --Peppage ^tlk 05:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a cleanup issue, not a reason for deletion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is the most cruftiest cruft I've seen in a long while. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is, this trivia belongs on a fan-site. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Cruft" is a non-academic nonsense term no one takes seriously. This non-trivial information concerning notable fictional subjects verifiable in multiple reliable sources belongs on Wikipedia. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Article about plants on made-up garden planet = Trivia/cruft. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is not a legitimate reason for deletion on Wikipedia per WP:ITSCRUFT. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nice essay. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, it had a lot of in-universe detail before, but I worked on it to have real-world context. At least consider a merge instead so none of this context is lost in deletion. Erik (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate although I respect the work you put in, I still feel that this subject is too narrow for inclusion on Wikipedia and would be better served on a fan-site. The fauna stuff stands up better than the rest of the largely unreferenced "Human" and "Navvi" sections. Add any good, new content to the main article, if it survives there, then it's obviously worthy of inclusion. :) Ryan4314 (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure cruft, absolutely not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Convince geocities to re-open and put a page there for this. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the outcome of the AFD is not to delete the article, I ask everyone who involved (or just reading this) to review my proposed move on the talk page to adjust the scope of the article accordingly. Depending on discussion, a move will be requested officially soon after closure if consensus is not to delete. Erik (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this article needs some editing and sourcing, I believe it is worth letting some people add some more about this movie. The 300 hundred million dollars were not all spent on computers - some thought is in it too, you only need to recognize it. I added the picture of the earth-based animal that inspired one the Avatar fauna ; I suppose quite a lot of the movie deliberately points at things, and I believe it is worth it to mention them.--Environnement2100 (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With over 50K page views since the page was created one week ago (source), the topic is certainly notable. In addition to all the mainstream coverage in reliable sources, there is enough information that can be used to create a useful article. The main article is already long enough, so merging the content from this article into the other article will only make it harder for readers to get a good overview of the topic. The fact that Avatar already is an entire franchie, with more movies likely to be released in the future, in addition to video games on multiple consoles and at least one book about the topic makes this a significant subject. Mathias-S (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to be a standard fictional character article, well referenced and too large to be merged into the main article. As a lover of Russian fiction, I know you can't have just one article for complex stories with multiple characters. And of course this a vertical franchise with a book, and a video game. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is fine, it goes deeper into this subject. However, the "Reception" section should be deleted. --User:PocketPup 21:42 29 December 2009
Merge to Avatar (2009 film). I wish we could see less emphasis placed on arguments over an subject's notability and more on what's best for those wanting to learn about it. There's little doubt that there is decent material here, or at the very least the prospect of good material being added in the future. But I've seen little consideration of what's best for our readers, a group we often forget when arguing over whether a subject "deserves" its own article. In this case, the useful material would sit far more comfortably and conveniently in the parent article, where that wider context, that framework, would allow it to be better understood and valued. Steve ^T • C 20:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some work of course but a decent start. For those who think this sort of thing is an unnecessary extension of the main article, try looking at Template:Middle-earth and drill down into the lists of Peoples, Realms etc. that provide navigation into hundreds of articles. Of course, I doubt we will need to go "quite that far with Avatar" (could become a catchphrase) but I think a properly referenced article explaining some of the background detail is more than acceptable - and if I may say so I very little time for much of the mass of "in popular culture" trivia and borderline spam that we routinely tolerate here. Tslolam? Ben Mac Dui 21:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC) PS Quite agree with PocketPup re the "Reception" section etc.[reply]
Keep The ecosystem plays a major role in the film, it's a major film, and there's too much information for it to be folded into the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarkonnen (talk • contribs) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with some of the above posts that this is a good read, very informative, and would be very hard to implement into the main film article. It would be fine in my opinion with more reliable sources. DrNegative (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't mean to single anyone out, but I just thought I'd point out (as I'm seeing several editors make what I perceive to be a mistake) that should a merge be desirable, there is enough room to accommodate the information from this article at Avatar (2009 film)—remember, not all of it would make it across and some is already present (plus, the main article could do with a minor c/e that would reduce the size a little). Steve ^T • C 08:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there's room, the question isn't space, it's appropriateness. Including too much of this material would imbalance the article. It's fairly standard in Wikipedia for daughter articles to be split off from parents, to avoid this imbalance, and examples of this abound in every topic you can imagine. I'd also add that as a very very recent film, both articles we are discussing will grow, develop and improve with time.

Here's what WP:SUMMARY has to say: Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article.

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that rather than delete the page, take out the information regarding the film, such as the parts after the humans section, and merge them into the main article, and then edit it so that it treats the Avatar world as a fictional world more. There's no need to delete this page, it just needs cleaning up is all. - Zoe12393 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe12393 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An entirely appropriate article about a notable element (actually a summary of several notable elements) of a fictional world. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP This article needs improvement but not deletion. --Jmbranum (talk) 21:26, 31 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#G7- author added "db-author" to article JohnCD (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical City of the Americas[edit]

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

Non-notable project proposal. As one of thousands of such proposals made every year, there is no indication that this proposal will be accepted and proceed to construction. No news items point to this as a notable proposal. When (if) this project goes forward, it will surely be notable as the tallest building, but as a proposal, it is not yet notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What I can find on the subject seems to indicate that this proposal is a long-dead idea. If there were notable coverage of the proposal an article might have been called for, but such coverage likely does not exist, as anonymous message board posters seem to indicate that they were under a Non-Disclosure agreement. Steamroller Assault (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC) see below.[reply]
Delete It's sourced to one website and full of plenty of would-have-beens, but I don't see any indication that even a single step was taken toward the project. If there had been a hearing before a local government agency, that would have been one thing, but it looks like this was an architect's dream about a 170-story building. Mandsford (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I took a look at the only link provided, and what I saw did not surprise me. If you look under "Facts" in the link, all the facts seem to point to the fact that this project has been canceled. For example, it says the building would have included 2.5 million square feet of office space, 700 hotel suites, and 1,000 condo residences. Because of this, I'm pretty sure this project isn't going to go through. The Utahraptor (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Author has requested deletion on user talk page. Steamroller Assault (talk) 23:36, 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 redirect to Mannequin (film). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Montrose[edit]

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

Unencylcopedic and original research. Bio of supporting character in two films. No significant pop culture references outside of the film itself warrant a separate article for this character. Also, completely unsourced. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No original research. Character is based on a real life person notable enough to have a wikie article. Besides, it's my article (hehe!)... The Wolf (what's up?) 13,35 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge/redirect No sources are cited at all, no independent notability, a minor character in two fairly forgettable films. If any of the content can actually be attributed to a source, it can be merged to Mannequin (film). Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 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) 02:25, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as nothing is sourced, there is nothing to merge. JBsupreme (talk) 19:33, 29 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 Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hammarstedt[edit]

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

Only sources available are a few quick notes in media coverage of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and episodes of Whale Wars. Unfortunately, there is not enough to create a biography of the subject and notability has not been established. This is exasperated by this BLP having 0 sources.Cptnono (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on the notability issue, but isn't the avaliable sources good enough? A whole documentary and heavy media coverage. Pikolas (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been heavy media coverage of the subject (Hammarstedt). There has been heavy media coverage on both Sea Shepherd and Whale Wars. He gets mentions but all we have is "he is a Swedish guy who works on the bridge and was promoted". I saw a source that mentioned his name a single time since he was having a hard time with his Visa but that was more about Watson than him. Even if those were given inline citations, notability would still be questionable. Since there are no sources and the sources available don't offer much I see no reason to keep this article. BLP guidelines say to be cautious and allowing such an article with 0 refs is unacceptable.Cptnono (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's also an interview on Animal Planet's website, but I don't suppose that helps too much either. Pikolas (talk) 23:44, 10 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) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. Has not appeared to achieve notability outside his association with the Sea Shepherds and Whale Wars. Although this doesn't fall within the exact terms ofWP:BLP1E, I think that guideline's motivating principle is applicable. There really isn't much information to be had about him right now -- what do we have, two sentences? -- so until such information becomes available there is no need to spin him off. For those who have seen the documentary My Kid Could Paint That, about a young girl whose abstract paintings sold for thousands, note that we have a separate article for Marla Olmstead, the girl, who was featured endlessly in the New York Times and elsewhere, but not on her father Mark Olmstead, who is not really individually notable but was covered heavily in the documentary. I put Peter Hammarstedt in the second category for now. --Glenfarclas (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, redirecting seems a good idea to me. Pikolas (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No substantial third-party coverage.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:59, 31 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. No consensus to delete though a big clean-up would be welcomed here. JForget 18:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've reduced the article to a stub version following concerns in the AFD and on my talk page. Basically just the first paragraph remains with the OR/unsourced bits removed. But the article entry still exists so users can rebuild it properly--JForget 20:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infraparticle[edit]

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

No references, reads like WP:OR, uses lots "if we assume, then...". AKA reads like OR, smells like OR and probably is OR. Subject itself is notable (as evidenced by a google search), but I have a hard time connecting what's in the article with what I find on google. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, non-speedyable articles about notable subjects are only deleted when their condition is so abysmal that it would be more efficient to delete them and rewrite completely. To bring an article about a notable subject in quantum physics concerning which an acceptable article could be written to AFD on the grounds of original research is inappropriate, since the determination of whether the article should be deleted requires considerable expertise which most editors participating in the discussion will lack. (By contrast, if a quantum physics article were nominated for deletion on the basis of a claim that its topic constituted original research, the matter could easily be resolved by reference to whether WP:RS for the subject matter existed.) Andrea105 (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Of course, if an article about a notable subject does constitute original research, it's always acceptable to rewrite it, even if the text requires considerable trimming as a result. This is not considered as drastic an action as page deletion, since the previous, putatively OR version is still available in the page history, in case the determination of original research proves to be incorrect... Andrea105 (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- !vote from indef-blocked sockpuppet of banned user John254 (talk · contribs) struck. Tim Song (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This in fact reads like the complete opposite of original research, but rather like a misguided attempt to present previous research on the subject in an unencyclopedic style. The Google Scholar search linked above shows that the subject has been the coverage of much previous research starting with this 1963 paper. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is an unreadable piece of garbage, however, no doubt exists about the notability of the topic. The article requires a clean-up tag and rewriting. No valid reason for deletion exists. There is a good basic review of the topic here (PDF file) that could help. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in the meantime, there's nothing in this article that can be salvaged. I can't rewrite it, and currently this is a negative value article; it is more harmful than good, and it's a lot more difficult to rewrite than delete so someone can start from scratch. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong article. You're right. It's unfortunately not salvageable. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably stubify it later on this week, but no time now. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:39, 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) 02:17, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? GScholar generates lots of hits on the term, but it isn't the least bit obvious that any of them have anyhting to do with whatever is being talked about here. At the very least this requires expert attention and a complete rewrite. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article. Much of it reads at best as OR at worst as pseudoscience. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
You can actually understand it? Infraparticles are not pseudoscience, it's just another name for a fundamental concept in quantum physics. I don't see how you can get OR or pseudoscience out of this, but, since you know the subject at that level, can you just stubify it or create the redirect? Voting to delete encyclopedic topics due to the articles being bad, even when this bad, does not serve the purposes of an encyclopedia as well as stubifying or creating a usable redirect. Please take up the task. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow User:XXanthipped to stubify the article or redirect it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:10, 29 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) 10:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Tatras International[edit]

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

non-notable radio station, totally unsourced Rapido (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This shouldn't be lumped in with all of the non-notable pirate radio stations that are being nominated en masse today. From what I can tell, it was licensed in Slovakia at one time and permitted to use the 94.2 FM frequency in that area [35]. The usual outcome is that licensed stations are inherently notable. Mandsford (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has basic web site for background, and alternative ref source for closure reasons. This shouldn't be lumped in with a mass of nominations from one source for various topics. As a legitimate licensed station, an entry here is reasonable and notable. --Keith 17:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a very well written article, but this station does show up in the World Radio and Television Handbook for 2007, so it's notable within that authoritative reference work. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The radio station was a valid one, now defunct and contains factual information. Improvements can always be made at a later date as with any article. --Cexycy (talk) 01:27, 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Cordac[edit]

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

non-notable radio station Rapido (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's kind of a judgment call on whether this would qualify for inherent notability. According to the source materials, This was broadcasting in the African nation of Burundi, without objection from that nation's government, but then the government began requiring broadcast licenses and the station was denied. Under the strict rule that refers to licenses, I don't think it would qualify. It does get a mention here, but that's all. Virtually no content. Perhaps someone can write an article about radio stations in Burundi. Mandsford (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Books turns up three works that reference the closing of the station in the context of Burundi regime crackdowns on Christian missionaries; there's also quite a bit in the shortwave listening literature about how this radio station was a difficult one to catch. Given how thin in general Wikipedia's coverage of Burundi is, I'd be inclined to WP:BETTER this rather than squelching it. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are other documents which support the information contained in the article so therefore the article itself is valid. Any improvements can be carried out at a later date as with any article. --Cexycy (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Books search linked above finds far more coverage than is required to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:39, 27 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time Radio[edit]

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

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the nature of pirate radio stations, you can't expect them to shout about their activities from the roof tops can you? Therefore some information regarding them will remain unknown and so cannot be included in an article. This in turn means that finding no sources does not really mean in this case that the article is poor. --Cexycy (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can you explain Time Radio's notability, as currently it appears to fail WP:N? Your "shouting from the roof-tops" statement is irrelevent, as that is more a self-promotion issue, nothing to do with notability. If this station is notable, then there should be sources. Rapido (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I think you'll find my "shouting from the roof-tops" statement to be very relevent. For obvious reasons criminals want to try and cover up their sources, therefore making any pirate radio stadion harder to document compared to other "non-criminal" issues. As for the radio station itself, it must have existed otherwise there would be no need to create the article and we would not be having this discussion now. Any radio station which did exist would be notable for two reasons, it existed and Wikipedia has to be unbiased. I'm sure you can see my point. Personally I have never heard of this radio station but I understand that others have and therefore the article is for their benefit (and of course also there for people like myself who have an interest in such things). --Cexycy (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to cross verifiability and notability thresholds due to lack of independent reliable sources. That a website exists for this admittedly criminal activity does nothing to prove that there is an actual pirate station nor that it has any notability outside the heads of its involved persons. WP has plenty of articles on notable pirate radio stations but, based on the lack of third-party coverage, this one does not make the grade. - Dravecky (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cexycy makes an argument many do: that if sources don't exist for a subject (or type of subject) that associated articles should be kept anyway, just because it's unfair to ask for sources when there aren't any. This quaint POV has no basis in WP:V, the fundamental policy of the encyclopedia. To quote from it, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Period. RGTraynor 14:26, 27 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) 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shock FM 94.9[edit]

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

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because article does not meet verifiability or notability thresholds. While pirate radio stations are not granted the same general notability that a government-licensed broadcast radio station enjoys, there is nothing inherent to pirate radio station articles that demands that deletion as long as they meet WP:GNG. - Dravecky (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio station. Joe Chill (talk) 02:09, 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 speedy keep. nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 03:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Tao Software[edit]

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

The only reference for this company is an IGN directory entry [36] on archive.org. Pcap ping 12:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the founders of this company, Joe Williams (Joedelta) has stub, and he appears somewhat notable (judging by the interview in a trade magazine), but this company article just duplicates that info. Pcap ping 12:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as maker of notable software, including Spaceward Ho!, Clan Lord, and Strategic Conquest, each of which have articles that establish their respective notability. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Google News Archives has plenty of relevant hits not currently included in the article. I've added a few to the article so far. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fewer than BeLight Software [37]. Just having a bunch of news releases about products does not make the company notable, even if some of its products are. Pcap ping 17:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Read a bit further; there are certainly some press releases there, but many more, especially of the non-free variety, appear to be reviews. Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This in itself is not a good argument. We have plenty of articles on notable software, but not on their non-notable creators/companies. Pcap ping 17:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure it is, to the extent that product coverage results in company coverage. How about helping me find better sources? Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books lists a number of places where Delta Tao is mentioned. Often in context of game reviews, but several of the books look like they actually cover the company in some depth. Unfortunately, none of those sections appear to be offered in preview. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Scholar doesn't generate particularly promising results. Of 5 hits, two mention their Monet software in passing, and one discusses educational use of Dark Castle. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of good coverage. - Eastmain (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage from reviews of their products, which are the appropriate RSs for notability here. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the historical record of this company is more impressive than my initial search turned out. Withdrawing nom. Pcap ping 03:45, 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 speedy keep. nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 18:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisitor (search software)[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources for this software. The two secondary sources in the article are blogs. It's true that one of them is Yahoo! Search Blog, but it's about the acquisition of this software by Yahoo. It might be merged with Yahoo, but seem rather trivial to mention there (one of the many start-up they bought), and it's not mentioned in any book on Safari (web browser) I could search on google books, so it's probably WP:UNDUE and WP:SPAM to mention it there. Pcap ping 12:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [38], [39], [40], and [41]. Joe Chill (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The MacWorld article, republished in Network World is a reasonable review; further, because Inquisitor (now) works for both Firefox and Safari, a merger would not be appropriate. The other stories are news of the company's acquisition by Yahoo, which I've already indicated above. Closing this before the guys busy with BeLight Software arrive to say that the MacWorld review doesn't count. :-) Pcap ping 18:29, 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. Cirt (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Free Scotland[edit]

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

non-notable pirate radio station; completely unsourced Rapido (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only 12 gnews hits in 60 years. [42] LibStar (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google doesn't have 60 years of news sources indexed. Please see WP:GOOGLE. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Google News hits are from Scotland's main newspapers, concerning a period when there was a perceived/real exclusion of what is now the governing party in Scotland from broadcasting media in the county. Agree about the unreferenced element of the article, though this can be fixed using reference material such as Gazetteer For Scotland [43]. AllyD (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mentions in 52 books in Google Books; key to some understanding of the Scottish National Party during its existence. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think that the material on the modern thing should go. The earlier version might be merged into History of the Scottish National Party as seems that there's not a great deal can be said about it other than the fact that it existed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:27, 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 speedy keep. has a page in the Panther Hacks book (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 12:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PithHelmet[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources for this software. Pcap ping 11:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:06, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transmit (FTP client)[edit]

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

This software's notability claim is based solely on a couple of reviews from blogs. It is mentioned in a some OS X books, e.g. [44], but alongside other 3rd party FTP software. One book hints that it's the "perhaps the most popular" 3rd party FTP Mac software [45], but hardly covers it otherwise. Pcap ping 11:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found [46] and [47] on Macworld, but one source doesn't make it pass WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, those are just news releases, which cite the developers, not much in the way of independent editorial commentary is made there. Pcap ping 18:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple articles describe awards this product has won [48], including an Apple Design Award & best of show at the Macworld expo. --Karnesky (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The awards was for "best Mac OS X Tiger technology adoption, for its use of features like Automator, .Mac sync, Spotlight, Dashboard and more." It just means the app was ported quickly and well to OS X, not much else. Doesn't even make it best in class... Pcap ping 22:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's only one of a handful of awards (you didn't demean their best of show at Macworld award). Also: the meaning is different than you contend, and even if it was the same, it was notable enough for coverage by an independent and reliable source. --Karnesky (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Allow me to be unimpressed by that too. Here is explained how those work: "Using the criteria that the winners had to either make their public debut at Macworld Expo or been recently introduced and that the judges had to be able to see them in action; Macworld's editors selected 12 winners: [...] Panic's Transmit 3 ($24.95) FTP software, which offers a new column view and more." And the full list pretty much looks like random stuff that got released at or around Mac Expo that year. In the BeLight Software AfD it was shown that one has to pay quite a bit to get a booth at the show (granted that doesn't guarantee an award). Industry awards often mean little for software notability or quality. Pcap ping 23:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to find a MacUser review for it [49]. With all the other news attention (most of which was paid for however) info, it's notable enough for me. Withdrawing nom. Pcap ping 23:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to close this my self, but Joe Chill !voted delete. An admin will have to close it. Pcap ping 23:30, 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 Speedy close by nominator, as article was CSD'd in the mean time. SGGH ^ping! 09:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grace precedes Law[edit]

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

A large, original research essay on the topic of God. SGGH ^ping! 11:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research; this isn't an encyclopaedic article.--Beloved Freak 11:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic essay of original research and ponderings. Glenfarclas (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator it actually contains some seemingly anti-non-Christian sentiment that may indicate an attack page and require discussing/warnings with the creator. I direct users to the content changed in this edit. SGGH ^ping! 12:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. EALacey (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is such a mass of original research and other unencyclopedic content that I suspect this debate will end in snow Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:04, 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. Although it looks like a case of WP:RECENT to me, editors are mostly happy to keep this; I'm not giving the new IPs much weight. Fences&Windows 01:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CKLI-FM[edit]

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

another non-notable pirate radio station. It came on the air and was closed a fortnight later Rapido (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There have been several reliable sources that have been covering this pirate radio station. єmarsee • Speak up! 17:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per emarsee. CKLI's existence was extensively covered by the local and industry media, making it as notable as the other pirate operations (such as Star Ray TV, for example). -- azumanga (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure how one CBC and one CTV report on air qualifies as prolonged or extensive media coverage --- I think you're playing fast and loose with those terms. Many local events receive the same sort of coverage every year in markets all across Canada and the US and yet would not be considered notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Also, only a handful of industry blogs commented on this illegal station in Ottawa -- I fail to see how this justifies it being notable as the firing of on-air personalities that are regularly reported by multiple industry blogs also, and yet these are not included on Wikipedia either. I'm not sure how this station has differentiated itself from any other illegal operation that is regularly shutdown by law enforcement. There was no legal precedent set at all in this case, as the station complied with Industry Canada's cease and desist order. 67.70.129.161 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC).— 67.70.129.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Pirate radio station broadcasts (especially when forced off the air) are regularly noted by the local newspapers; however that doesn't give the station any encyclopaedic notability. Please see WP:NTEMP, perhaps also WP:N/CA and WP:NOT#NEWS. Apart from going on the air, going off the air, and the fact of going on and going off being reported by the local paper, how else is CKLI-FM notable? Star Ray TV has been broadcasting for 12 years with a licence at times, and is much more notable, so I cannot see that being any comparison. Rapido (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's earned it's notability - It's been reported on CJOH-TV (CTV Ottawa), CBO-FM (whose signal was being interfered with *by* CKLI-FM), and several other industry watchdog websites. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates are notable if they garner as much media coverage as this one got. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this one easily meets WP:N due to the extensive and prolonging media coverage it received. - Ahunt (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too vote for keep. First off, there is more to this than meets the eye. Second, reports are it is back on the air. Third, its a pirate radio station that was on the air yes, but unlike others this was i) a Canadian station which IC had not previously dealt with and ii) the station is still arguably on the air via its online streamsAlebowgm (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Firstly, can you explain what "more than meets the eye" regarding this station, it's not obvious. Secondly, sources? Thirdly, i) isn't it Industry Canada's job to deal with pirate radio stations?; ii) well online can't be "on the air", so it's just another internet radio station. We need sources or notability for each of these points. Rapido (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Read this [50], from page 1. єmarsee • Speak up! 01:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still fail to see how a thread on a forum proves that this pirate station is notable for Wikipedia -- there is no distinguishing or extraordinary circumstances that would justify its inclusion on the site. Pirate radio stations regularly startup and get shutdown all over the world, like any illegal undertaking. There has been no legal precdent set with regards to the station's illegal activities to justify its inclusion. If the station has received a legitimate license to broadcast, then there would be reason to include it for the sake of completeness. However, at the moment, once again, it sounds something better suited for WikiNews than Wikipedia. 67.70.129.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC). — 67.70.129.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I've never stated that the topic was meant to prove notability. My comment was meant for Rapido's question on "more than meets the eye". I would normally be against having such articles on pirate radio stations that get shut down without mention, but clearly this one is notable. It's been covered by industry blogs, online news sources, local newscasts, national newscasts and more. єmarsee • Speak up! 05:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, more vague allusions to references with nothing concrete to back it up. I did a search online and all I could find was 2 local broadcasts pieces, 2 local news articles, 1 somewhat national article, 1 mention on an industry blog, and a forum thread. Hardly what I would classify as prolonged or extensive media coverage. Also hardly what I would classify as justifying inclusion of it in Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. 67.70.129.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC). — 67.70.129.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Okay, I see a forum post with members discussing the station. How is that "more than meets the eye"? Please communicate it here, as I'm obviously missing it. There are something like 150 pirate radio stations in the UK, and now and again, you'll see a station get mentioned in the regional TV news or a national paper. And many mentions in web forums and blogs. That doesn't make them notable enough for their own articles! Otherwise, by the same token, we'd need an article for every single event that gets reported by the media. I would've said that this fails WP:BIO1E, however that applies to individuals not events. Altho' a single individual seems to be behind the station. So all I can say is that it fails WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP unless something more exciting than going on and off the air happens, and it being reported each time. Rapido (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Exactly, rapido. Media coverage does not equal notability for inculsion in Wikipedia. If that were the case, then I would expect that every dead soldier in Afghanistan would have an article devoted to them on Wikipedia, as they certainly would receive just as much, if not more, media coverage. Likewise, every single criminal act that got reported by the local/national news would have to be included in Wikipedia too, and I'm fairly confident that Wikipedia doesn't have an article for every single victim, criminal, and act committed since the beginning of time around the world. Once again, unless this station actually was granted a license, or there was a precedent set as a result of legal proceedings, there is nothing that differentiates this station's story from an other insignificant pirate radio station that's come and gone over the years. Sorry but it's just not notable, as rapido noted bassed on the above Wikipedia criteria. Hence, "Delete". 70.51.60.203 (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)— 70.51.60.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete First off, the call letters that this station is listed under are not even official -- they were made up by the person running this illegal operation. Secondly, pirate radio stations come and go all throughout the world all the time, and thus, including every single one that receives what I would describe as a small amount of media coverage is just unreasonable - I would not call one CBC and one CTV report as prolonged or extensive media coverage -- also a few articles on a handful of blogs online is not a reasonable criteria for justifying the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia, as then you could easily justify the inclusion of hundreds of thousands of inane topics if that were the standard. Furthermore, just because it continues to broadcast online only is not a justification for keeping the article either, as there are many (thousands, if not more) internet only radio stations too that would have to be included in Wikipedia if that were the criteria. Also, Industry Canada has dealt with the station and it is not broadcasting over the air anymore -- handled exactly like all previous cases. If there had been some sort of legal precedent set, then I would be inclined to include it. But at this point, it has not differentiated itself from an other pirate radio station. Once again, if we are including articles on all sorts of illegal activities by the public that are in no way distinguishing, then there would be billions of articles to be added to Wikipedia that would meet the criteria. Lastly, I think an article on this illegal activity would be better suited for WikiNews and not Wikipedia, as I can fairly confidently say that no one will remember about this station in 5 years time, and thus, its notoreity would be nonexistent. 67.70.129.161 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment -- But what if Saadé does succeed in getting a legal license to broadcast down the road? Also, even though it would become yesterday's news nationally, it may end up being fondly remembered as part of the local Ottawa culture. I know it's no Radio Caroline or Wonderful Radio London, but still an article shouldn't be killed off for what would (or wouldn't) happen in the future. -- azumanga (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see WP:BALL, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If something fantastic regarding this station were to happen in the future, then the article might be re-created. But as it stands at present, I am still of the opinion that a fortnight's broadcast and minor coverage (along with much unverifiable information, perhaps even mis-information) does not equal the notability required for an article. Rapido (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - azumanga, rapido is correct in asserting WP:BALL in this scenario. There has being nothing notable to happen with regards to this station, and we shouldn't be keeping articles around just for the sake of that one day in the future that something may happen to make it actually notable. By the logic you're using, we should keep an article on me as part of Wikipedia, just in case somewhere down the road I cure cancer or some other fantastic accomplishment. Again, I would say that the topic of this radio station would be probably better suited for WikiNews than Wikipedia. And if somewhere down the road, something notable does happen with regards to this station (like a new legal precedent set or the actual applying/granting of a license), we can always recreate the article, like rapido noted. But for now, none of the people who voted for "Keep" have actually put forth a valid reason to continue to have this article, as it is no more notable or worthy of an article than last night's hockey game, unlike rapido who has quoted specific rules of Wikipedia as to why we should "Delete" this article. 70.51.61.174 (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)— 70.51.61.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Neither are the call signs of the part 15 stations in the US, and yet Wikipedia has several articles on them. I can name KBXZ off the top of my head. Jayhaed has claimed that his station has a license (B2, WTF?) and is broadcasting in Ottawa again. There's no proof from the CRTC's website of a license, so he just ignored IC at least twice and signed on again, without approval. There's been tons of coverage from the Ottawa media as well as national media. єmarsee • Speak up! 01:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - However, they are legal broadcasting outfits -- this one is not. It's like comparing apples to oranges -- this kid just picked a callsign out of his head (first, CTOM and then, CKLI). Also, I did a quick search and outside of an article on the CBC's website which could be classified as national coverage, all coverage has been local (one broadcast piece on CTV Ottawa and one on CBC Ottawa, and an article in the Ottawa Citizen and the Cornwall Free Press) and relatively inconsequential. Again, I fail to see how this has any more notoriety and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia than most of the daily local news events reported in markets all over Canada, the US, and the world. Sorry, but without providing any sort of concrete reasons as to why this station is notable (vague references to sources is of little use), I'm still inclined to say "Delete". 67.70.129.223 (talk)— 67.70.129.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - I find it kind of fishy that all of the "delete" votes (besides Rapido) have come from IP accounts registered with Bell Canada, and all of them either have this as its only edit, or one or two other articles as edits. Being bold, I smell a case of "ballot box stuffing" here. -- azumanga (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to agree with the ballot stuffing issue here. Using Geolocate, all of the IPs are from Ottawa and there are pairs of IPs who are located at K1A and another pair of IPs from K1P. Could it be someone who's changing their IP account at work and at home to promote their own interest by deleting this article? єmarsee • Speak up! 18:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can only see one delete contribution (the one added 23:05, 26 December 2009), the rest are comments like this. The writing style looks the same, and I had assumed it was the same person without a fixed IP address, even before the "suspicions" above. Perhaps their ISP assigns an IP address to them randomly when they switch on their computer setup. This happens to me when I do not log in, and they may not even be aware of this. Rapido (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability established by reliable secondary coverage with significant national attention, unusual for such cases e.g. CBC sources, Calgary Sun. Dl2000 (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although they are pirate right now, they applied for a license right now, and their actions gained significant attention. But I think we should change the article name to "Mix FM Ottawa", not some made-up call signs. tablo (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm curious to know where you heard they applied for a license, considering it hasn't been reported anywhere -- I wouldn't call the word of a 14 year old kid a reliable source, especially given his penchant for stretching the truth in the past. Also, that Calgary Sun article is just a regurgitation of an Ottawa Sun article. 67.70.30.149 (talk) 21:21, 31 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) 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BROFL[edit]

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

Neologism, possibly made up, and at any rate, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Web search doesn't really yield anything to support this, in particular Urban Dictionary has a different explanation. Contested PROD. Favonian (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above; the page shows no sources and makes no attempt at demonstrating how BROFL is different from any of the 10,000 other ROFL variants. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 09:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as Angrysockhop RWJP (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is apparently an inside joke with high school students in Essex. Mandsford (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Joe Chill (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. No evidence of notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:18, 28 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) 10:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1972)[edit]

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

Emergency landing by a jetliner. Although traumatic, it's not notable. I could spend some time and try to pull up the stats on how often this happens but it's really a waste of time. This happens with some frequency, none of it's notable,a lthough it might be reported on. But as we always say, notability isn't just a mention, it has to be demonstrated by reliable sources. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from creator This is a translation work, and not yet done, so wouldn't it be a bit too early for AfD nomination? I'm now working and don't have as much time as I used to do. The ja.wp article does have refs, just that it will take me much longer than half an afternoon to translate all of them...Blodance (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but it if no further edits will be made, then delete it. Armbrust (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not too early. You've got at least 7 days, and even if it's deleted you can recreate. Plus, if there's even the most slim suggestion of an article here, it'll be kept. If you have content to add then do so. I'll change my opinion quickly in that case. Shadowjams (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me dude, if you created a new article and after like 3 or 4 hours found it AfDed, you would have the same feeling, "Why so early?"... Indeed, I didn't check into its notability, as this is a translation work. Gotta run for dinner now. Blodance (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me dude, I have. I understand the feeling. But on the flipside I think that notability criteria are important. It's what separates wiki from a simple google search. I'm not new. I'm open to arguments, but I don't see anything indicating this particular incident is especially notable. I may be wrong, and if I am, I'll change my !vote. Shadowjams (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry about not thoroughly checking the subject, I simply saw the article(as one of a series of accidents JAL suffered within a single year) when I was translating another one, and thought that if this one deserves an article(survived 2+ years w/o objection) on ja.wp, it might deserve one on en.wp as well. I'm not very sure if an accident that is a)a hull loss b)an accident(the most notable of the type) leading to a change in safety measures c)one of a few accidents that shared a (exactly the same) flight number with other ill-fated flights d)has coverage in ISBN 4101249067 & Asahi News would establish notability. If not, I've no objection in deleting it. Blodance (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll take another look soon at some non-english sources, when i get a chance. If you find anything good please post it here. Shadowjams (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name for this type of accident is a runway overrun, which is currently a redirect rather than a separate article. There are different reasons for this type of accident, such as taking off from the wrong runway Comair Flight 191, landing on the wrong runway, or equipment failure or pilot error on the correct runway. I would rather the author be given time to complete the translation, but I think that, eventually, it should be part of a larger article about short runway overruns. Mandsford (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This accident is sufficiently notable, it resulted in the write-off of an airliner, circumstances also of some note. Allow the creator time to expand it. Mjroots (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: It's not that unusual for aircraft to land at the wrong airport. However, in the vast majority of cases the aircraft is undamaged, not written off. Mjroots (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commment We really should be waiting longer than 17hours after an articles creation before nominating for AfD Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 17 hours is too early. That's nearly a full day, at least one editing session, and they've now got at least 7 days to improve it. How is that not enough time? The reason I nomed it when I did was because it was on the new page list. Besides, the notability of the incident won't change in the course of a few more days. This isn't an issue of underdevelopment. Shadowjams (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable incident. The worst that should have happened was an unref tag. You should see some of the crap that comes through the new article filter that doesn' get deleted! Maybe the time spent setting up the AfD could have been invested in helping with the article? Lugnuts (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep itit shows what had happened in the past and that's why we should keep it.AiviationP. (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep commercial airliner was written off in unusual circumstances, article needs more work but that is not a reason to delete. MilborneOne (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could do with a copyedit and more horough referencing, but I consider it notable. Wexcan Talk 08:40, 31 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 both. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alongkorn Jornnathong[edit]

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

Two Thai footballers who are not individually notable, and do not satisfy WP:ATHLETE because Loei City is a semi-professional club and thus they have not "competed at the fully professional level of a sport." Contested PRODs. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fail WP:ATHLETE. Also fail WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, semi-pro does not equal professional, and therefore is non-notable. Sean (talk || contribs) 21:29, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon 2.5[edit]

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

Online Digimon fan-fiction. I can find a handful of chatboard-type references, but nothing in reliable sources that would satisfy WP:NBOOK (is that the right standard? anyway, nothing that would satisfy any notability guideline I can think of). The author seems to have contested my PROD with a note on my talk page ("But those articles have a cartoon is Digimon 2.5. Digimon 2.5 still have."), so I've de-PRODded and put this here. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think there is "notable fan-fiction" anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Digimon 2.5, also called Digimon Adventure 3, is a fanfic" -- pure non-notable vanity. --EEMIV (talk) 22:52, 28 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. SilkTork *^YES! 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Demon of River Heights[edit]

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

First, author apparently wasn't sure what the supposed "23rd installment" of the series was called and created Terror in the Outback, Mystery in the Outback, and this one (The Demon of River Heights). I prodded all three, Prod for this one removed. Then I checked the company's website, they are barely listing the 21st installment.

If indeed this was announced as claimed, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the first place to look is their website, and that there should be #22 before #23?

(Hoax? Real? Notable? Crystal ball?) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. WP:CRYSTAL violation. Very clear. --Manway (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ill-informed, unsourced, badly written WP:CRYSTAL. Favonian (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nancy Drew is a series of video games now? Well anyway WP:Crystal Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per lack of verifiability as well as clear crystalballery. –MuZemike 18:11, 29 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) 10:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 source = delete. no objection to recreation if sources are found and umar hospital needs to be nominmated separately Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Riaz Hospital[edit]

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

Non notable hospital, can't find anything to improve/expand beyond stub Mattg82 (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless good sources can be found. ~~I found a few articles mentioning it, [51], [52],~~ nothing covering it in detail, however. And there's not really any information on the page to be merged anywhere. Cazort (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update, those sources are not about this hospital, they're about a swiss hospital by the same name. Cazort (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless stub. If the stub is kept, someone with access to better references will eventually expand the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a separate AfD. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eastmain about that needing to be considered in a separate AfD. However, I have a question for Eastmain: What are your grounds for establishing notability? The stub being "harmless" is not grounds for keeping it. In the absence of finding sources, I think you would need to provide a compelling argument that sources most likely exist. The "sources" I thought I had found mentioning the hospital actually were referring to a Swiss hospital by the same name. I can't even find record that this place exists. Cazort (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fully agree with User:Eastmain's sentiments, but on a more policy basis, most hospitals in the US are probably notable because of the media coverage they receive. At this time, we don't even know the size of the Riaz Hospital, but it would be unfortunate if it's really deserving of an article, but will be deleted only because there are relatively few editors that can utilize Pakistani-language sources.--Pink Bull 04:43, 24 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) 06:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any information giving anything other than the information that's already in the article. Hut 8.5 11:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both articles to the article about the cities that the hospitals are in. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a harmless stub. I have zero respect for people whose contribution to Wikipedia is to make lots of one sentence stubs that they will never revisit. Of course, inherently notable topics are permitted to exist as nothing more than a stub. Hospitals, however, are not inherently notable. Mandsford (talk) 17:20, 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) 07:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuareg Geeks[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable band, faiing WP:GNG and WP:BAND. I cannot find any evidence that (a) any albums or singles of this band have charted (having searched Mexican music charts); (b) the band has released albums on prominent labels; (c) any evidence of the band doing a national tour, etc. etc. The article certainly doesn't make any verified claim to notability, and I don't believe reliable material is out there to support it in any case. Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of verifiable sources and absence of notability as my searches show too. Interestingly, though, the article now appears in this book. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:42, 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) 06:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a marginally notable subject, this group doesn't meet the criteria for bands. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find any in-depth coverage; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 18:27, 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 no consensus - default to keep. — Sebastian 02:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Muhammad[edit]

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

Meets none of the criteria listed at WP:MUSICBIO

Shortcut

WP:MUSICBIO

Also note that 2 of the 3 sources mentioned are from an online discussion forum. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he does have some google news hits but I can't find any in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Polarpanda (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you search the full google news archive, there are 83 hits. Book search finds relevant hits in Billboard magazine and The New Yorker. Also hosted a television awards show in 2006 and was nominated for a Clio award in 1997.[53] 76.253.140.190 (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK keep then thanks to the google news archive hits, none of them look very in-depth but there's a lot of them and they are enthusiastic. Polarpanda (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you want this article to justify a spot on Wikipedia you must demonstrate that this artist fulfills the requirements listed at WP:MUSICBIO

Shortcut

WP:MUSICBIO

You've mentioned some google hits, but all you have technically cited is a bio at Allmusic.

Sources must be independent from the musician. Bios at Allmusic are generally written either by the artist's manager or the artist himself. Please cite the exact articles which demonstrate your claim. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, here's why:

I've taken the time to look into the justifications for inclusion mentioned here. He is definitely not listed as a host of the 2006 Hip Hop Honors show. In fact none of his online bios even claim this, they simply say he was "invited to host," for whatever that means. As for the Clio awards, I also could not find anything confirming this. However, a search of the 1997 Clio archive yields 667 winners in the television/cinema category alone. If was indeed nominated, he was probably one of several thousand.

What clued me in to consider nominating this article for deletion is because the sources listed for this artist were from an online forum. I also found it somewhat bizarre that the only independent section was from a 2004 benefit concert apparently held to raise legal funds for an arrest. I did find the two billboard hits, but he is given only a sentence or two for performing with the articles' subject. "Works comprising merely trivial coverage" is listed on the WP:MUSICBIO page as something that does not fulfill the notability guidelines.

I am not denying that this artist has had a degree of national exposure. However, he does not appear to justify inclusion under the Wikipedia guidelines. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 01:43, 22 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) 06:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]. The New York Times called him "one of the world’s premier beatboxers". It is possible to expand the article with information from reliable sources. Kenny is known even in my country (Czech Republic), I've found some coverage also in my native language. This could be useful for our readers. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every single one of those articles is minor piece for the sake of promotion. If this guy is such a big shot, where's the discography? Where are the tour dates? I kind of have an issue with an artist having a wiki page with no discography, but maybe that's just me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.176.231 (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm, I consider the links to The New York Times, The Washington Post and New York City’s First Muslim Arts Festival as reliable and independent, not promotional. The link to NME is partially based on Wiki article, but rest of above mentioned links provide a good material for the expansion of our article. I'm trying to avoid the promo stuff, this is not my first vote at AfD. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry but I still stand by my original post to delete. Under the Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion, the artist must be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works." He is not the subject of the Times article nor the Washington Post article (nor for the Billboard blurbs either, for that matter). As for the "Muslim Arts Festival," that is in fact a promotion piece and fits into this category of what does not qualify for wikipedia inclusion:

- Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.

I appreciate that you are trying to avoid the promotional stuff, but unfortunately that is all this artist has. If he's really "one of the world's premier beatboxers," he should be able to get a record deal, tour, and PR person that will take care of all of this. It just doesn't add up. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough significant coverage in the article and linked to above, and the amount of passing coverage bolsters his notability. Someone the NYT calls "one of the world's premier beatboxers" should be covered. Fences&Windows 21:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I'm glad you have given us your opinion, but you've got to demonstrate that he fulfills the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. I see you stick to Wikipedia standards for other edits. The NYT gives plenty of coverage to whatever music comes across their path. A journalist saying that someone is "one of the world's premier beatboxers" doesn't mean it is remotely true. My point is that if that is truly the case, the proof is in the pudding. "Passing coverage" doesn't really demonstrate this. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support keeping the article for whatever reason I like, thanks. WP:GNG is passed as far as I'm concerned. The NYT is a generally reliable source, not prone to hyperbole. I struck your "delete", you're the nominator so there's no need for you to !vote. Fences&Windows 01:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Pope[edit]

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

Article lacks references and includes dead links. The notability of the model is also in question.Sid1977 (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 04:45, 22 November 2009.

Note: This nomination was incorrectly filled as a subpage of deletion review. Cenarium (talk) 18:25, 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) 05:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENT and the marginally applicable WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject satisfies the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:23, 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) 07:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Campus fire safety[edit]

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

essay Delete Secret ^account 18:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely unreferenced article, heavily indicating original research, in addition to almost all edits that add content performed by one individual. Article repeatedly begs the question in the statements it makes. Much of the article seems to be simple, common-sense statements or information that is not really relevant (e.g. a description of what a smoke alarm is). There seems to be nothing notable in the whole article, which is effectively merely general advice rather than anything that could be considered encyclopaedic. Fenix down (talk) 18:20, 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) 05:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps the statistics in this can be part of another article, but the gist of it is that 80 percent of campus fires are "off campus", and that fires take place in houses and apartments where students happen to live. The same can be said, however, about any houses and apartments where adults live. What I don't see in the article is anything indicating that universities and colleges are putting any emphasis on fire safety for students. Perhaps the point of the article is that they should be doing so, but that's a soapbox, not an article. Mandsford (talk) 17:27, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Trotta[edit]

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

Honestly I don't see how he meets WP:BIO, all the sources I seen were passing mentions that doesn't describe the subject, including the NYT ones, and arrests which falls under WP:BLP1E Delete Secret ^account 17:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Keep. There are 2 New York Times articles, 3 years apart. He is noted for early opposition to Iraq war, and is an editor of the Catholic Worker,a publication that has an article in Wikipedia. He is a noted anti-war activist. If this move for deletion is politically motivated, a deletion would violate neutral point of view standards. It is difficlt to tell if it is or not, as the motion for deletion is anonymous. (sorry, that was incorrect. Secret is not secret. My bad. Pustelnik (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence whatsoever that this nomination is politically motivated, so please assume good faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of the reliable sources in the article, they're all only trivial mentions, if even that. Then a news search comes up with nothing conclusive. As much as I wanted to keep it, I have to say delete on this one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. He seems to be doing notable activities and he has been cited by the NYT. Further more in some cases when someone is doing credible or noteworthy work and the Mass Media gives them only a minimum amount of attention that should often be enough. The rule on notability gives the mass media to much veto power. In order to be notable the Mass Media has to recognize someone and the Mass Media often ignores people who deserve the bully pulpit but don't go along with the agenda of the Mass Media. Wikipedia shouldn't just say ditto every time the mass Media speaks Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that our notability guidelines are not concerned whether anyone "deserves" an article. They an indication that the world at large has taken sufficient note of a subject for us to be able to write a neutral article based on reliable sources, which include much more than just the "Mass Media" - in fact, sources such as academic books and papers count for much more than coverage in the mass media such as tabloid newpapers. A Wikipedia article is not a reward for good works. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way rules are enforced are often inconsistent. In many cases the people that are given more attention by the Mass Media are given preferential treatment over published scholars. The NYT isn't a tabloid and in many cases there are a lot of notable things that are much more important than what either the Mass Media or Wikipedia are presenting to the public, this is just a minor item as far as I know, but it is an example of some efforts to delete things that people disagree with. This is one of many minor articles that aren't that important but the ones that I have seen AfD are often political in nature. Trivial non controversial articles are less likely to be targeted they are just ignored. For example List of minor characters in Judge Dredd is a harmless article which no one seems to concerned about. But when there is a political agenda they are more likely to be targeted. Your statement that there is no evidence that it isn't in good faith is probably false but it would take to much work to refute it. It might require a statistical analysis of AfDs which I don't care to do. Also the claim that Wikipedia isn't censored (officially) should give the benefit of the doubt to keep if it was sincere. Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:05, 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) 05:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While more sourcing would be helpful, Google Books, Blogs, and News searches turn up enough evidence to conclude that the subject is a notable spokesman for one or more of the organizations mentioned in the article and also a plausible search term. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:31, 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) 10:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One dimensional nano materials[edit]

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

non encyclopedic essay WuhWuzDat 17:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Judging from the appearance of this article, it is almost certainly a copy-and-paste from somewhere. Perhaps from someone's school paper(?). •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does look like a copy/paste of a journal article. This article is (yet) absent on Web of Science and might be in print or alike, but it is not encyclopedical and not neutral. The author name coincides with the name in one of the references (thus potential COI). The references are very single sided (to China/Asia) whereas the field is huge. It is much easier to rewrite such an article from scratch than to modify the present content. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 24 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) 05:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I think the topic might be notable, but Materialscientist is probably correct in that it is easier to start over. There is currently nothing in this article worth keeping. PDCook (talk) 15:53, 29 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/keep WP:NAC TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All India Secondary School Examination[edit]

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

It's a case of wrongly naming the All India Secondary School Certificate Examination as the All India Secondary School Examination. Even the primary references given in the page fail to substantiate the existence of the All India Secondary School Examination (either in whole or as an acronym). ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it's a case of an article having the wrong name, that's not a basis for a deletion. Perhaps someone can write an article about the "All India Secondary School Certificate Examination" if there is not one already. Mandsford (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indian Certificate of Secondary Education which seems to be the examination refered to. TerriersFan (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indian Certificate of Secondary Education is a separate education system in India - no relation to AISSCE. Maximum, the current page could be a redirect page - but only after a separate page for All Indian Senior School Certificate Examination or All India Secondary School Certificate Examination could be created. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This examination is documented in the Encyclopaedia of Education in South Asia and the Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The nomination has no substance and so is wasting our time - please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)‎[reply]
Strong keep - further to documentation found by Colonel Warden and sources such as these [60],[61],[62],[63] it is clearly an independent and notable examination. TerriersFan (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a clear case of nominator not doing WP:BEFORE. Salih (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously, we need at least some level of WP:Before done. Just clicking on the Gnews and Gbooks links shows a lot for this title, and even if the title is (supposedly) incorrect, all that needs to be done is to move the page. -SpacemanSpiff 07:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all arguments above. --Sodabottle (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My mistake. [64] lists both examinations - namely, All india Secondary School Examination and All India Senior School Certificate Examination. I change my Afd to keep and do apologize for the inconvenience caused. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been shown above. Priyanath ^talk 00:28, 28 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 as G12 - entire article copied from here. TerriersFan (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St.Anne's school[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St.Anne's school

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

No reason for notability has been given. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apart from the above, the article carries no verifiable and reliable source except primary ones. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:07, 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. WP:NOTNEWS is concerned with whether the notability of the event will withstand the test of time. Even though this may have had international coverage, there is nothing to suggest that the coverage will endure. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; as such, it covers topics that last. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing 2009 DC Snowball Fight Gun Controversy[edit]

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

A non-notable snowball fight. Quite simply a policeman acted in misconduct and it made local headlines for an hour. This fails WP:N per WP:EVENTS - Depth of coverage, duration of coverage, geographic scope, lasting effect, and almost every other criteria we have for current events or other events. This is already article on WikiNews. Mkdw ^talk 04:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nominator. Mkdw ^talk 04:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, with no prejudice against re-evaluating in, say, a month's time. Sometimes these things snowball (hah) into things like Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy. Way too early to tell at this time if this will be forgotten. Give it a month and if nothing more is said about it in the media, there's your answer. Incidentally, the article needs renaming for a variety of obvious reasons, but I'd rather see a brief discussion of what a better title would be before do any moves.--Father Goose (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I've renamed it to 2009 snowball fight gun controversy, just to remove the most glaring errors in the original name. With such a mangled title, I can't help but think it will poison the well against the article, regardless of whether it may or may not have a place in the encyclopedia.--Father Goose (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless I'm immediately putting this up for deletion in Jan. The only reason you're saying keep is that this MIGHT become a notable article if in the FUTURE it becomes a significant issue blatantly WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Mkdw ^talk 10:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The person who wrote the article jumped the gun on declaring this incident lastingly notable; you're jumping the gun on declaring it instantly non-notable. If you had been willing to wait just a little while, this deletion discussion would be more straightforward, as the significance (or non-significance) of the event would become clear by then. Just a dollop of patience would have served the community better in this case.--Father Goose (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious this will not develop into anything more than a page 12 story. We can recognize that does not constitute needing to wait it out. If I make a an article about band I believe will become famous, are you suggesting that we keep the article because only time will tell if they do or not? The point that articles are to be judged in the current is very expressly pointed out in nearly every Wikipedia policy. Mkdw ^talk 22:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice it to say I'm intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policies. I have less confidence in your ability to ability to predict the future -- "It's painfully obvious this will not develop into anything more than a page 12 story" -- than you do. In this case, I personally would have preferred a month of so worth of future to elapse, thereby removing crystal balls from the equation altogether.--Father Goose (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, switch to delete, as it does seem the story has died down, and will probably not meet the duration of coverage/lasting effect criteria. My original point still stands, however: had the story evolved since the opening of the AfD, and demonstrated some ability to meet those criteria, it would still be deleted on the basis of several premature assessments not taking that into account.--Father Goose (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. And no controversy either, since everyone agrees that the police officer was wrong. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree with no controversy, there are seveal opinions which blame the people in the fight for making more than there was. And yestarday the head of the DC police Union called the comments of the chief as wrong [65]. Also in the area where I live, it was picked up on a African American cop harassing a group of white men with a gun. Again, I do live in Southwest Ohio so news here has some bias. As this happened in the nations capital, I started an article figure that this would snowball (no pun) in to something more as DC falls under the jurisdiction of congress. I thought that this was something that might do that, if it does not than it should be removed, if it does it has become worth the time and effort of editors, I think. Jsgoodrich (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I love wikipedia. I hadn't even heard of this, and I love how it morphs into "2009 DC Snowball Fight Gun Controversy".--Milowent (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News stories report that an off-duty cop got mad because a snowball hit his Humvee (personal car or department??) and he exited the vehicle with a pistol in his hand, aimed downward. In the Boston Massacre, Americans threw snowballs at British troops, who shot and killed 5 of the snowball throwers, helping to spark the American Revolution. In this case, good judgment prevailed, no shots were fired, and the incident petered out. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, due to a lack of enduring notability. Cops carry guns, and in a potential riot situation, unholstering it seems like a reasonable response, if not the very best one. Edison (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, I did not recall the snowballs at the Boston Massacre, very nice. Apparently there are notable snowball fights. But no doubt that would have been up for AfD in 1770 as a single criminal event of minor importance.--Milowent (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename. Speaking as a Brit this is exactly the sort of thing I find disturbing about armed police and about a gun carrying culture. It is the sort of event that would lead, in London or Brussels, to a public enquiry, and possibly a policy change. Certainly the officer would be on gardening leave, not desk duties. The fact that none of these things has happened is a marked contrast that is, in itself, notable. Hasty Deletion might,in some cultures, be seen as a cover-up or news censorship. Remember what the world thought of Iran trying to shut down twitter reports of post-election demonstrations? --Brunnian (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAnd when London police shot a brown skinned unarmed man,Jean Charles de Menezes, in the head 7 times, when he was guilty of nothing but getting on the tube and sitting down, and there were several enquiries, what punishment was meted out? None. The official in charge was in fact promoted. The U.S. cop at least had had the training and sense not to panic and start shooting. The Menzies incident showed that some police weapons use can be notable. But not every drawing of a weapon needs an encyclopedia article forever to commemorate it. Edison (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um.. what? "Deletion might, in some cultures, be seen as a cover-up". And here comes the conspiracy censorship theories about fellow editors. That's very nice that you find gun-culture disturbing, but unless you have an opinion about Wikipedia policy and this articles relation to it, your point is moot. Public inquiries happen all the time. Police and politicians are reprimanded all the time. Do we have an article for every single Internal Affair document ever filed, no. Using examples like Iran, and Massacres has absolutely no relation to this article as those were already major events and this will likely not even make the news in 2 days. Mkdw ^talk 09:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

exactly the incident does highlight some themes about D.C. and America: armed police, with an understandable overreaction, (just like the World Bank illegal arrests); 14th & U an historic intersection, (U st and 1968 riots); culture wars between Facebook meetups and blue colar cops. Now if we could get some references to write an essay. Pohick2 (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Pohick~~ Brunnian, I'm afraid the arguments don't enter into it. Just because we're a gun carrying culture and the cop was armed doesn't mean this is why he lost his temper. He just lost his temper, and had a gun on hand. He was off duty. This is Washington DC, not the best area in the world to put it mildly, and as a cop, he is issued a right to carry a revolver. But, we're not concerned about this - the concern is only whether this is a notable incident. The rest of the information you have doesn't add or subtract from this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Got the wrong guy. Sorry, Pohick, meant to address the guy who !voted keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: check out WP:CENSORED. The comments you leave seem to be alluding to that you feel we are censoring this information. This isn't censorship in the classic sense - concensus thus far seems to state that we don't think it's notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.--24.201.13.148 (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Police screwups occur every day, and in the sbsence of significant controversy or consequences there's no reason for a COATRACKy article that does little more than point at the nn officer involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An overly detailed article about a local incident covered by the local paper. The fact that the locality is Washington, D.C., rather than Seymour, Indiana, is of no relevance whatsoever. There was a snowball fight. A cop drew his gun. The cop was disciplined. I'm glad that it didn't become notable. Mandsford (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's been moved to remove the leading "Editing" from the title. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cop lost his temper, brandished a gun, threatened some people who were having a good time, and the cop got slapped. OK, everything happened as per procedure. But just because a cop threw a tantrum, that doesn't make this notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Non-notable local news item. --NellieBly (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. This was not a local news item, it was reported internationally and in many different media. The Twitter aspect is interesting. Perhaps the consensus will be to delete, but of course other editors will be free to bring it back next year if the incident turns out to have "legs" in the media jargon. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was widely reported in the UK as major news. WP:NOTNEWS is therefore not applicable as that just deals with routine, local matters. We have abundant notability and notability does not expire because the sources which are the basis of notability do not disappear - they can only grow in number. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy doesn't speak on how long the sources remain, but the duration of the collective events which lasted less than two days and is no longer being reported on. This story also has no lasting effects in that when it talks about 'enduring' it refers to remaining current and on the radio of media. The story has effectively died and no further media is being generated in regards. "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic". Nothing much else to say really. Mkdw ^talk 16:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is still generating coverage days later. The guidance you cite indicates that our coverage should be confined to an article about the event. This is what we have and so we're good. Deletion of this notable topic is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no its not. Other media have picked up the story and are reporting on the snowball fight late. No new events or developments have been reported on. This confines the event and all news to the day of the snowball fight and has had no lasting effects which makes it a delete under WP:EVENTS and WP:NOTNEWS. Lily Towers^talk 20:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reason for deleting is NOT NEWS. I think that we often apply NOT NEWS considerably too stringently, but this is a place where it does apply--something intrinsically extremely minor. If it does not apply here, where does it apply? That there are sources are irrelevant to the reason for deleting. Obviously the season had something to do with the reporting -- this is not exactly Tabloid, but its the same principle, that pure human interest local stories unless they become a significant controversial issue or impact politics, or are major enough to be part of history, do not belong here. We've deleted hundreds of murders, & I do not see how anyone could claim this as more important. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable based on press coverage. I don't care if it was a snowball fight, a gunfight, or a snowball fight between snowmen for that matter. I care about the importance assigned to the subject by the outside world, regardless of any inherent attribute of the subject. I wish we could put to rest this silly idea that something can receive large-scale public attention and still somehow be non-notable. Everyking (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article on the Obama family White House vegetable garden? Northwestgnome (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why we couldn't: [66][67]. WP:WAX-based arguments are of little use.--Father Goose (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is an article on the White House Vegetable Garden Jsgoodrich (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS - "News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all newsworthy events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." Lily Towers^talk 20:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an issue that has now been over a week old and news sources are still reporting this and reaction. Also this is a article that can be expanded to talk about the reaction to the flashmobs. This was a police officer how may not have seen a flashmob event or even known what they are. How is a flashmob different from the start of riot or large protest. As more and more flashmobs appear the reaction of people and law enforcement could be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsgoodrich (talk • contribs) 03:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no. Some media sources picked up the story and reported on the snowball fight. They are not generated new stories about developments after the event which makes all news about this event confined to the day itself. No lasting effects whatsoever. Lily Towers^talk 19:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: since I know this will likely be deleted, I would suggest that a paragraph be added to Snowball fight, which already mentions a few other snowball fights that made the papers.--Milowent (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, can you add that paragraph, or at least add the idea to the talk page there? --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, added a referenced sentence there Pohick2 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because WP:NOTNEWS does not apply (because event was by far not local, it was covered all over the world) and notability is obvious. This is a worthy contribution to the project, it tells us of flash mobs and about police mentality. Turqoise127 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason for the fact that it was covered all over has nothing to do with the criteria in WP:NOTNEWS or WP:EVENTS. Your statement that it should be kept because more than local news reported it is not found in any Wiki policy. Lily Towers^talk 19:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete & Comment - It appears to me that everyone above that has said WP:NOTNEWS does not apply due to it being reported by other abroad news sources hasn't read the policy. In fact the policy does not even mention anything in relation to where coverage takes place. I have decided to post the policy here for your clarification:

News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all newsworthy events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)

I cannot help but think that this is a prime example of WP:NOTNEWS in that while this event was covered by the media, but like the policy says, not all newsworthy material should be included in an Encyclopedia. It defaults to WP:EVENTS where the event has failed to generate more coverage other than the exact event itself, and has no lasting effects. Lily Towers^talk 19:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for your comment, editor Lily. I am not very demanding that this article be kept, but I stand by my vote because I feel that the event paints a picture about possible ramifications of flashmob games and about the "town sheriff" mentality of police (not all of course) insofar as shoot first and ask questions later. I do agree with you that we default here to WP:EVENTS, and I shall also modestly list here an excerpt from that policy;

Depth of coverage

An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. CHECK.

The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents). CHECK. (ramifications of police conduct and flashmob phenomenon).

Duration of coverage

...Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established... CHECK. So no need for continuing coverage. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. CHECK CHECK CHECK. We do not as of yet know if any of this will have lasting impact. Also, event occurred recently.

Thus, note to the closing admin, per Lily Towers, please see that we default to WP:EVENTS and disregard all delete votes above and below that cite delete per WP:NOTNEWS.

Thanks editor Lily.Turqoise127 (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misread her comments and noted that she actually voted deleted. It appears you only have 400 edits, but the way the !vote system works here is that the other editors have argued that WP:NOTNEWS applies here for their own reasons, just as you feel it does not apply. The fact that you feel its void does not invalidate their arguments or the arguments of anyone else on this topic whether they voted keep or delete. The story has died so it has no duration and hasn't had any lasting effects, so uncheck? Mkdw ^talk 18:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an angry cop brandished his sidearm after his car was hit by a snowball and... then what? Then nothing as far as encyclopedia's go. Not news, etc.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's imagine two scenarios: in the first scenario, the incident plays out the way it actually did. In the second scenario, the officer opens fire on the crowd and kills several people. Now imagine that these two scenarios receive identical levels of press coverage, identical levels of public attention. In my view, notability has to be based ultimately on whether people care, which is by necessity evaluated on the basis of published sources. If there's no difference in the degree of public attention, then the level of notability is identical. I can't take seriously an argument that says: "This is more notable than that, because in this case people died." As a measure of notability, a standard like that is just too crude and subjective to be useful. Everyking (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a cop murdered a group of US civilians in cold blood that would be a more notable event, both empirically and as it would be reflected in the press coverage of the trial, police inquisition, citizen protest rallies against police, expert papers written on what went wrong that turned a cop into a murderer, etc... In your hypothetical, the real world impact and level of public caring would be much, much greater. If you can't see how this article and the hypothetical you invented aren't even in the same ballpark, then i can't help you.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're missing the point: of course we'd expect the second scenario to generate greater attention, but we're imagining, for the sake of argument, that it doesn't. Is murder intrinsically more notable than non-murder, or is it just ordinarily more notable because ordinarily it would attract more attention? Try an even more extreme scenario: the cop shoots these people, and it garners no more than a line or two in the local newspaper, whereas the original scenario 1 gets international news coverage. Everyking (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Impossible, never gonna happen, hypotheticals are tedious. In this instance we have a singular event of no lasting real-world impact, which made it into the "on the lighter side of the news" section of a few newspapers for a few days, then completely disappeared. You're missing the point by making up scenarios that have not happened, and never will happen. Only articles that exist, on events that have happened, can be evaluated. In this instance there is not coverage of sufficient depth to warrant an article. You seem to think the standard of inclusion should be "everything that was once written about in a newspaper." The actual and appropriate standard is a little higher than that.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is news fodder, and in the grand scheme of things, nothing is lost as WikiNews already picked up on it, as they should. JBsupreme (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, the wikinews article was deleted [68] Pohick2 (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "NOTNEWS" mentions "routine press coverage". What level of press coverage, if any, do you feel would be necessary to demonstrate that this subject received more than "routine" press coverage? Everyking (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that an incident briefly catches people's attention doesn't make it encyclopedically notable. This is why we don't have an article on 2009 White House dinner menu typo controversy. If this becomes more than a minor two-day event in the news, there'll be plenty of time to make an article about any genuine "controversy" that comes about. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but your argument about a page 6 sytle section article does not hold water to me. We do have 2009 White House gatecrash incident which was a event that was picked up as a minor event with no real encyclopedia value. I think people are missing the bigger picture overall. As more and more flash mobs grow the interaction between the police or land owners is going to become more of an issue. If you were a cop and saw 200 people in the streets would yo not worry? Law's are always slow to keep up with technology, so is police procedure. Also what is encyclopedic has grown as wiki is not limited to a paper copy and we do not have to worry about printing and shipping cost, so we can have more and expanded what we cover, and we also can cover more events in real time over that of a paper copy which has to take months to edit and print. Jsgoodrich (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then is this just a WP:COATRACK article for discussion of the interaction between flash mobs and the police? Would you object to merging a sentence or two of this article to Flash mob#Notable flash mobs? Glenfarclas (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- People who want to delete per NOTNEWS should answer the question I posed above: How much press coverage do you feel would be necessary to exceed the level of "routine" press coverage? Is it your position that everything the press reports is routine unless reports continue to be published after an extended period of time? Everyking (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that there is a specific length of time etc. How about if you try WP:RECENTISM instead. Apply the 10 year test. Will anyone in 10 years give a crap about this? How about 10 months from now? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lets delete per NOTNEWS. No no, wait, delete per EVENTS. No, wait, no, doesnt hold water, lets try delete per RECENTISM. No, no, wait, um what else can we try? Turqoise127 (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Snowball fight. Turqoise127 is wilfully misreading the guidance at WP:EVENTS, which is the appropriate guideline for this kind of article. I should know, I helped write the guideline. Despite widespread coverage and a diversity of sources, there's no indication that it'll have a lasting effect, and the coverage directly about it and outside the immediate locality petered out after the 23rd (so coverage is hardly persistent). It can be mentioned briefly in the main snowball fight article, the level of detail the article goes into is ridiculous. Fences&Windows 01:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keke Wyatt controversy[edit]

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

Non-NPOV content fork of Keke Wyatt. This information had been on the main Wyatt article for several years, before the editor who created this article (Bab-a-lot (talk · contribs)) started editing it. I'm going to AGF on the creator's part, but even if this information were merged back into the main article, it gives undue weight to controversies that seem to have had no mainstream impact according to the references cited. Additionally the title is not a plausible search term if merged. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surely a WP:CONTENTFORK. Some of the text from this article can be merged into Keke Wyatt and the rest discarded as repetitive. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:33, 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) 04:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a court of law, or a court of public opinion. No need to produce evidence so that a controversy can be decided. Give 2-3 sentences in her article about the issue.Northwestgnome (talk) 05:32, 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) 07:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttling[edit]

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

The concept is insufficiently notable for an article. Three-sentence stub with no sources and no obvious way of expanding. Brilliantine (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's unreferenced, just redirect to Shuttle. Polarpanda (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be about one particular part of a dot matrix printer. I don't think Wikipedia needs an article on one part of the mechanism of a printer. A redirect to shuttle (disambiguation page) would not hurt. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 05:03, 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) 04:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have the topic covered better at dot matrix printer, the article's title is not especially used for this topic and there is no significant content to lose. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:04, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Workers Party (Trotskyist–Posadist) (USA)[edit]

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

Can find absolutely no independent coverage from acceptable sources. Fails to meet WP:GNG by a long chalk. Brilliantine (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 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) 04:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google News Archive search turns up results for a party of this name in Mexico or Central America, but it is hard to find refs for one in the U.S.[69]. The refs tend to be lower case-descriptive rather than about the organization in the article. By comparison, there are thousands of refs for the Socialist Workers Party (United States) in the U.S. This group also gets less press than the Trots of the Revolutionary Youth Movement in the U.S. Appears to fail WP:V and WP:N. Edison (talk) 06:50, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kinderdance International Inc[edit]

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

This page is very obviously self-promotion material written entirely by someone affiliated with the corporation. It is a perfect example of "What Wikipedia is Not: Advertising or Self Promotion." At the very least, this page is non-notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nico Catrix (talk • contribs) 18:02, 15 December 2009

To illustrate: just look at the corporate website. It has a link saying "Visit us on Wikipedia!" That link is right between "Visit us on Facebook!" and "Visit us on Myspace!" Obviously, this company thinks that wikipedia is some cheap self-promotion social networking site.

Comment I would say there is a distinct odour of spam, but not a perfect example of the type. It is at least written in a wikified style, rather than a brochure through the letterbox style. I'm concerned about the notability and referencing. Both the worldfranchises one and smittysplanet go to a page that seems to indicate a problem over registration of the domain; the Minority Franchising one goes to an apparent advert (by the wording); the IFA one also reads like an advert or directory entry; Franchise Mall is a directory. Then also, the Entrepreneur page 'cannot be found', and as to World Franchising, 'The requested URL /franchises/Kinderdance-International.html/ was not found on this server.'. Not looking good so far. What's left? The Company Site. Definitely not good. The creator of the article, Nunscio, says on the article's talk page 'I am new at this and want to be sure it is a good article, what can i do to make it more like an encyclopedia and less a pamphlet if thats what it seems. I did my best just to state the facts.'. Nunscio created the article, and has only made one minor edit otherwise. Interesting that someone is so keen on the company that they 'have done have done a lot of research' (quote from talk page), but not come up with anything reliable. Possibly there isn't anything. I've just scanned through the first 100 ghits and found an amazing number of franchising opportunity sites (looks like a quarter of the world is trying to sell another quarter's franchises to the rest of it). One 'dance' site - which turned out to be a directory. Personally, I'd have tagged db-spam and db-inc together. OK. Come on the supporters. Prove those awards - and the notability of them - and demonstrate the real notability of this company before I make up my mind. Peridon (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Very promotional in tone. Note frequent use of ® and ™ symbols. If kept, needs to be cleaned up and given a factual tone. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 05:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeing as no reliable indications of notability have appeared since my comment above, I'm going for delete - without prejudice. If the necessary references are found, by all means re-create. This is an interesting AfD - a virtually SpA created article nominated by an SpA. There's a hidden story somewhere... (Is one a successful franchise holder, and the other one whose business didn't work? That's one trouble with being a writer - you see plot lines everywhere.) Peridon (talk) 18:48, 19 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) 04:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I added some references and removed the ® symbols. I think the references added today add up to notability. - Eastmain (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the article now has a criticisms section, I don't think that it should be dismissed as promotional. - Eastmain (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be OK. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The criticism section has been deleted. I wrote it before I realized that it was possible to submit an article for deletion. If this article does survive the Self-promotion test, I still recommend that it be deleted for lack of notability. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to create notability where none existed independently.Nico Catrix (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)NicoCatrix[reply]
Comment I have just re-viewed the references given. Of the five originally given, two are still dead (going to what looks like someone who would be happy if you wanted the domain name...), and only one even remotely possibly contributing to notability - and I don't trust it as it's a franchise trade listing. OK. Now for the new ones. The Orlando business one is info from the company. The Austin one says they're opening three sites. So? The Birmingham one is an 'interview' article with a franchisee - who isn't going to say anything bad, is she? The same applies to the accessmylibrary one. Nothing third party or neutral in any of them, to my mind. Don't trust me. Look for yourselves. Peridon (talk) 20:50, 31 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) 07:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 614 volume 1[edit]

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

Non-notable documentary by a redlinked company. An orphan with no ghits to speak of. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could find no relevant coverage in reliable third-party sources. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:38, 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) 04:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 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 deleted. — Gwalla | Talk 23:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soberphobic[edit]

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

Non-notable band lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. CSD was removed by SPA. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The tag may have been removed, but the article clearly meets the A7 criterion. --RL0919 (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I'm not sure why we would let an SPA / obvious IP sockpuppet of the creator defeat the speedy deletion process. The article clearly gives no indication whatsoever that this band is notable. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 (band). So tagged. This appears to be a garage band. We're not Myspace. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:53, 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) 07:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Quinlan (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non professional athlete. Fails WP:Athlete Shadowjams (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a similar message to Shadowjams (talk) The tag placed on Shaun Quinlan (ice hockey) being considered for deletion I couldn't disagree more with.

http://people.famouswhy.com/shaun_quinlan/

The National Hockey League was looking to sign Shaun Quinlan in the mid-1960's. Played for semi-pro and NHL farm teams as injuries persisted.

The Boston University Terriers Men's Ice team is not only one of the best in the country, but one of the best in the world at the college level. To be scouted to play there is an honor that few can say they ever did. This man was a high school stand out for Arlington High School and could have went pro had it not been for injuries. He played with Jack Parker, one of, if not the winningest coach in Division 1 college hockey history. You say, non-professional. Wow, Travis Roy from Boston University was never a professional as well as many other so called professional athletes on Wikipedia. This man is achived in the Internet Hockey Database, played for one of the best college hockey teams in the world, played for the second highest winning coach in high school history Eddie Burns and his name is archived in the Boston University hockey family. Wikipedia is about athletes and important people who achieved greatness in whatever they did. This man was a great athlete and links to many Hall of Fame individuals. It's athletes like this that paved the way for the young athletes today. I remember friends telling me about Negro league baseball players, some made the pros and some didn't but they all made an impact on the game of baseball and will always be remembered the same way this man should in the hockey world. It has been over 40 years since this man played so statistics have faded into outdated record books, but they are out there and just need to be located. This amazing athlete has earned the right as a man to be here on Wikipedia for his place on one of the greatest greatest college hockey franchises in history! This man repesents hockey nostalgia and can enhance Wikipedia through Hall of Fame hockey links and articles. I ask you sir, do the right thing and let this great hockey player and member of the Boston University Terrier hockey family be a member of the Wikipedia family, he has earned that right! Shaun Quinlan was scouted by Boston University to play hockey for the Terriers. His play in high school, Arlington High School especially, earned him a fully paid athletic scholarship to play at Boston University for free. If one knows hockey, I mean really know their hockey in the hockey world, he or she can tell you Boston University will not even so much as look at you unless you are a superstar at the high school level. Boston University paid this mans tuition, they paid him to play for them, he was that good and could have went pro if not for injuries. All one in the athletic world has to do is look at the bottom of an athletes Wikipedia page and see the Category:Boston University Terriers ice hockey players and that sums up this person was the best of the best in hockey at that time. Remember, many Negro baseball players are in the Hall of Fame. Yes, they were not pros (Major League Baseball), but the impact they made on the game should NEVER be forgotten and that fact doesn't mean they weren't good enough. Wikipedia is like the Hall of Fame, great athletes on historic teams have a rightful place on this great project and every time one is added it enhances the overall Wiki.

Thank You & God Bless Wikipedia's Editor's and Staff,

Bladezuvsteel (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: TL;DR version please? URBAN-ANDY (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best estimate: "Played for farm teams, played for collegiate team." Still no claim to passing WP:ATHLETE. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will try to find more sources etc. It has been over 40 years but I will try. If this man played today and was healthy he would be in the pros, sad. Don't know what "still no claim to passing" means or DR version.

Bladezuvsteel (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Quinlan (ice hockey) Labeled the article a stub, looks like it fits that category and that will allow it to be expanded upon. And from taking a few quick moments to look in the Category:United States ice hockey biography stubs, one of the first names I clicked on was Jason Saal who never played a single game in the NHL and plays for some lower International "AA" league team. With that being said, this article deserves to be saved as a stub so it can be expanded upon in the event information becomes available via hockey archives. Bladezuvsteel (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be so great Shadowjams (talk) if you could save this article as a stub and take off the "article considered for deletion" tag which you placed on it. This would allow people the opportunity to search hockey archives and databases to help expand it. There is information out there, it just has to be found. There are many hockey players on Wikipedia that never made the NHL and played in affiliate leagues etc. I strongly feel this hockey player is a quality addition to Wikipedia as a stub especially when many other stubs don't contain much of anything. This article is a link to the Golden Age of hockey and one of the best college hockey teams in the world and there is more quality material and photographs that have yet to be added to it. I ask you to save it as a stub and allow it to have the opportunity over time to grow like so many others on this great project. Thank you Shadowjams & God Bless you, Bladezuvsteel (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While Mr Quinlan may very well have been capable of playing in the NHL, the sources in the article do not indicate that he actually played in the NHL. As for other hockey players in Wikipedia who didn't play in the NHL, I refer the interested student to a popular argument best avoided. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any Wikipedia editors that can save this article from being deleted and have it saved as a stub? I grew up with this guy and he was a great talent. Lost touch after high school. You say never played in the NHL but I saw this site:

                          http://people.famouswhy.com/shaun_quinlan/

and it says he did. Out of respect for him I thought I would put forth a bit of effort to get him saved as a stub. It says time in the NHL, don't know how much etc. but I was just going off this information from this web site. I believe it qualifies as a stub but I respect the editors of this great project if they feel otherwise. This is my last hope to get it saved once and for all. I hope on this Wikipedia jury of editors there is one on there that feels the same way I do and gives it a chance in the event more archived info is found it can be added to it. Either way I thank all the editors and staff at Wikipedia for everything they do and am very thankful for your time,

Bladezuvsteel (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bladezuvsteel: Sorry for not addressing you directly until now, but let me try to explain our reasoning here. It's my fault for not doing so sooner. Many of us go through this deletion process with dozens of articles at a time, and we generally all agree on a few criteria for the ultimate criteria which is Notability. Generally that means a topic is talked about by major sources in a way that would indicate that the topic is itself notable. There are a lot of specifics laid on top of that, but generally that's the touchstone for everything that wikipedia does.

In some cases a large number of editors that focus on specific topics, sports for instance, have decided to come up with some guidelines for articles on that topic. For sports, generally, that guideline is found here. I nominated this article because I didn't think it met that criteria. I'm not especially active in the sports-wiki community, but I'm aware of that guideline.

As a broader rule, I think the notability guidelines are important. You can search for anything you want on Google, and often get a load of responses back. What makes Wikipedia special is that if you search for something it returns back (often) what you wanted, and also, some detailed info on that. The notability guidelines, and all the specific versions they've become, are meant to preserve that experience. After all, that's what an encyclopedia is.

I appreciate that you have passion for this subject, and that you believe it's important. It probably is, and probably should be represented. But that doesn't mean it needs to be in an encyclopedia. I really appreciate your enthusiasm. All of us here have had edits and articles we've added that other people haven't agree with and we've lost them. But most of us have had more of our contributions kept. I hope you keep contributing, because I think you'd be an asset here. If you want to mix it up on the actual criteria for inclusion, I hope you do so. I know I have from time to time. There's a lot of debate here. So if you have any generic questions feel free to ask me. I haven't changed my mind on this specific article, but I hope you'll appreciate my reasoning and explanation. (I've copied this to Bladezuvsteel's talk page). Shadowjams (talk) 08:26, 22 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) 04:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE --Smashville^talk 17:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played professionally or at the highest level of amateur competition. Also fails WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Bladezuvsteel if you can show us that he played professionally in the minor leagues then he will probably meet the requirements like Jason Saal you mentioned above. However, none of the major hockey databases such as hockeydb.com show that he ever played professionally. Since he was only a university player who never won any major awards he simple does not qualify for an article. -DJSasso (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please note here WP:ATHLETE and WP:OUTCOMES - particularly for sports for the latter. He may have been good, but good doesn't always mean WP:N passes. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Massive fail of WP:ATHLETE, WP:V and WP:N. However much pro scouts allegedly thought well of him, he seemed to be oft-injured and played only thirteen games of college hockey. There is only a single G-News hit for "Shaun Quinlan" + Terriers, a 1964 Harvard Crimson game recap mentioning him in passing. RGTraynor 23:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I did my own Google News search for just Shaun Quinlan, and the only article that mentions him appears to be the same one RGTraynor found. Given what the page claims about him being scouted by NHL teams, it surprises me that there is no real coverage of him in news sources, since college hockey is very popular in the Boston area. The article meets none of Wikipedia's notability requirements as it stands now, and I don't see how it can be established. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:20, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Channel stars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is an unreferenced list that fails point one of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. After an unsuccessful prod[70] I discovered that this article had been deleted after a previous AfD so I nominated for speedy delete (GSD G4) which was also declined.[71] The original AfD resulted in a "Delete" consensus and the article was subsequently deleted. The category that it had been compared to was deleted a month later after a CFD.[72] List of Disney Channel stars was recreated on 8 October 2007. This was apparently never detected, so it wasn't deleted under CSD G4 then, (if it had this AFD wouldn't have been necessary!) and the article has progressively been expanded. However, it remains an unreferenced list of names of actors who have appeared in Disney Channel programs

Reasons for rejection of the prod were:

"the refs are in the linked articles" - Wikipedia articles can not be used as references. References should be included in the subject article, not in another article.

"and essentially all of them are notable enough to have them" - That the actors linked to might be notable is irrelevant. Notability does not automatically extend to another article.

As it stands, List of Disney Channel stars is simply an unreferenced, indiscriminate directory of Disney Channel actors (not all of them actual "stars") with links to one or more articles that they have appeared in. Some of the listed actors aren't even notable enough to have their own articles. Josie Tysoe, for example, doesn't have an article and isn't listed in Camp Rock, the program in which she allegedly appeared. Others who do have articles, such as Adrian R'Mante, are not stars in the programs attributed. Adrian R'Mante, while appearing in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, was never credited as part of the main cast. Lack of references in this article also make it difficult to identify vandalism, such as this, unless the vandal is persistant.[73]

While the article has been expanded since its recreation, the expansion has not improved it to the point where its retention is justified and the decision of the original AfD should stand. AussieLegend (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I declined the deletion, and asked AussieLegend to bring it here-- the last discussion was 23 months ago, the article is changed since then, and I furthermore think consensus on this sort of lists has changed. I would have brought it myself, except for the confusion of my listing an article for deletion and then saying there is no reason for it to be deleted. First, as for sources: The criterion for deletion is not unsourced, but unsourceable. If the links are in the primary articles, they can be added. Personally, I don;t think it necessary, because if it were, we could never write summary style articles. Its not that the references are is the other article, but that it makes use of the other article's references. If anyone thinks the distinction important, they are at liberty to add them. As for notability, a list of notable things, characters, or people that are sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia articles about them is justified--lists do not have to prove that the concept of making a list of them has been discussed by RSs, or we would have almost no lists at all. If some of them are not notable, they can be either removed or justified at the article with sources. We don;t delete entire articles because a small portion of it is incorrect or not sourceable. FWIW, I would not necessarily support articles like this for less important groups of works. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If the lack of references isn't a reason for deleting the article, and I do agree that on its own it isn't, then it shouldn't have been the main reason for declining the prod, the main point of which was that the article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY.[74] The lack of references was mentioned because it is a factor that makes this an article of questionable value. The article is now two years old and not a single reference has been added, or is likely to be added. As such, the validity of the entries is questionable despite wikilinks. (See my earlier comments on Josie Tysoe for an example) WP:NOTDIRECTORY states that "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." This is clearly a list of real and sometimes fictional people, so the policy says it's not Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As if to confirm my earlier comments, this edit added "A * states that the stars are not actual Disney stars and are former Disney stars" and tagged 15 actors who aren't Disney stars in an article that supposedly lists Disney stars. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:38, 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) 04:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a list of everyone who appeared in a Disney production (series or TV film), including one-shot guest star appearances. Closer to fancruft than serious encyclopedic research. Warrah (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Factual errors aside, this page is nothing more than a jumbled assortment of any actor even remotely associated with the Disney channel. Suitable for a catagory, not an article. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 20:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above; there are some uncompletable lists on Wikipedia that deserve inclusion, but this isn't one of them, and that's not even touching on the notability argument. KaySL (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most "delete" recommendations above. This list has no clear criteria for inclusion. Brooke Shields is listed for appearing in just three episodes of Hannah Montana, and Vicki Lawrence for four episodes of the same show. Does appearing on three or four episodes make a person a "star" of a television network? I don't think so. Furthermore, as noted by AussieLegend above, some of the people on the list are asterisked to indicate that they "are not actual Disney stars", which is an odd characterization for people on a "list of Disney Channel stars". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:04, 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dock plate[edit]

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

Fails on WP:NOTDICTIONARY, unrefed Mattg82 (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it also fails on WP:NOTDICTIONARY:

Transwiki both to wiktionary. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 06:18, 19 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) 04:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki both to Wiktionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dock plate per this edit. Uncle G (talk · contribs)'s excellent rewrite has established that this notable topic does not fail WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Cunard (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dock plate per Cunard. Agreed, the rewrite pushes this to a keep. Nothing really happening with Traction component; is there a merge target that might make sense? Transwiki works, if not. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:50, 29 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Vernon Williams[edit]

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

Procedural afd nom. This article was prodded, and I removed the prod. I feel the article should be kept, but also that it is close enough to the limit of notability that it should be brought here for full debate. None of the individual items in this person's biography wopuld pass WP:N, but the combination of them is probably enough to justify the article. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable, third-party sources can be found to support the claims, per WP:N and WP:BLP. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear particularly notable and no independent sources. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 07:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm actually inclined to believe that he is notable (particularly for the Treaty of Waitangi work), but can't find any references and without references it's got to be deleted. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found and added a number of works by Williams where the identity was established by both subject matter and full name. All are linked to the catalogue of the NLNZ. I consider this satisfactory evidence of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Stuart, above - there may be notability here, but we can't document it. No objection to an article later on, if sources become available or if notability becomes clearer. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Can't find any references? There are quite a few here and here! It's just that they're all under "David Williams" rathder than "David Vernon Williams". Shall we start with these: [75], [76], [77], [78]... I suspect that if I had a Lexis password I could see whether this also provided evidence. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per list of sources provided by Grutness.-gadfium 20:26, 22 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) 04:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Grutness, appears notable enough and influential. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The lists of publications displayed by Grutness is useful but the GS cites to them are weak. Perhaps this is not unexpected for a subject of interest to few but New Zeaand scholars. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 28 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. JohnCD (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Law the Thing?[edit]

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

Contested prod. Original research. Analysis of a work by Jacques Lacan, only Lacan has never produced any work titled Is the Law the Thing? Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually, it's a single sentence from Lacan. Lacan himself didn't necessarily intend to be understood, so this essay appears to be in accord with Lacan's wishes. No references, an apparently original essay and analysis. Acroterion _(talk) 01:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely original research by one editor. Such a detailed exegesis may well have value in a different forum, but not on WP. (FWIW, Lacan really is genuinely difficult and profound, and work along these lines is needed to unpack his writing... such work is published places that are not encyclopedias). LotLE×talk 02:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting piece to be sure, and perhaps worthy of being stored in his userspace, but not encyclopedic per WP:OR et al. I do hope the author sticks around though; if he wrote that himself, he could be a valuable editor/contributor. Zelse81 (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Policy is No original research. Tangurena (talk) 20:47, 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. JohnCD (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Lehner[edit]

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

Contested prod. Subject does not meet notability criteria per WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE or WP:ATHLETE. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One article in a reliable source contributing to significance of coverage is [79]. Much of the other news search results, however, are merely routine sports reporting, not establishing notability. More usable sources might be found with further research. Alison22 (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Junior World Champ for Sweden, a number of articles solely about him, and according to his NHL Draft Prospect card has a number (2) of records despite a playing record under the "100 games" in WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Zelse81 (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second place is not the champion. --Smashville^talk 17:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet inclusionary guidelines. --Smashville^talk 17:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lehner has spent all of the current season in the Ontario Hockey League. Is this not regarded as "an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant" per guidelines? And has he played in the Elitserien?--Freshfighter9 (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no lack of a professional league. There are professional leagues in hockey. That is meant for sports that don't have a pro league. -DJSasso (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to eliteprospects.com and eurohockey.net, he has played in the under-20 and under-18 Elitserien leagues, but not at the top. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um. There is professional hockey in Canada. In fact, inside sources tells me, that North America even has a league. --Smashville^talk 17:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Can be recreated when/if he ever plays professionally or other wise achieves notability. It would be a WP:CRYSTAL violation to do otherwise. -DJSasso (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hasn't played professionally, hasn't won a notable amateur award, hasn't competed at the World Championship's or Olympics, wasn't a first round NHL draft pick. Once he accomplishes one of those, the article can be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 15:01, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:Speedy keep #5. Please reopen after getting the article removed from Template:Did You Know. NW (Talk) 02:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards[edit]

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

Aggregation of otherwise unrelated celebrities due to the simple fact that they own a vineyard. Viridae ^Talk 00:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's got 31 sources, and it's more than just a list, notwithstanding the use of the "L-word" in the title. Apparently Forbes magazine thinks that this type of investment is notable. I don't see any real basis for deleting this. Mandsford (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive, subject-matter specific sources more than establish the notability of this phenomenon. Alison22 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the Nielsen Research think that the concept of tracking sales data figure for "celebrity wines" is notable, then it is certainly a notable topic for Wikipedia. As both Allison and Mandsford notes, several of the reliable sources featured in this article are specifically about celebrity wines and discussing this phenomenon. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Can't think of any reason to delete this. It is a tidy, well referenced article. Mattg82 (talk) 01:55, 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, with no prejudice towards turning it into a redirect. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad of South London[edit]

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

Not a notable institution. One of hundreds just like it that serves as the home base for a local Chabad rabbi. Violates content forking WP:CFORK and also WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTDIRECTORY because Wikipedia is not Chabad.org. This should be merged and redirected to the main Chabad house article with a couple of sentences being more than sufficient. IZAK (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Chabad house per above. IZAK (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable institution that probably could have been speedied. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now It's a recently-created stub; let its creator take some time to improve it. If it continues to be as short as this, then delete it.
Comment This institution may not be notable enough to have an article, but Izak's comments above are unacceptable. Whatever this is, it is not a content fork, advertising, or a directory. It is an article about an institution; nothing more or less. If it has attracted enough coverage to satisfy WP:N then it stays; otherwise it goes, just like hundreds of other WP articles about non-notable institutions, all of which are assumed to have been created in good faith. As for "Wikipedia is not Chabad.org", I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but taken together with Izak's many comments elsewhere over the past week or so, about some sort of Chabad conspiracy to "take over Wikipedia", it is clear to me that his deletion campaign is not undertaken in good faith but in pursuit of an anti-Chabad vendetta, as if subjects connected in any way with Chabad were thereby somehow illegitimate. -- Zsero (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, Zsero, I am sticking to the point and also to WP:BOLD. What is false or not true or "unacceptable" about the nomination? You are talking about ME but not about the SUBJECT at hand and that is not productive. Why talk around a subject when I am trying to be as direct and honest and not devious at all. Any editor is free to take an interest in subject/s of importance to them and I have been known as having an interest in Judaic articles since December of 2002, and the subject of Chabad is important given its controversies and its attempted reach, in this case onto Wikipedia as if there is now a Wikipedia Chabad house at work with the pro-Chabad editors as its bosses in violation of WP:OWN of the Chabad articles and if anyone questions them or their edits, they go to WP:WAR and violate WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND as you are now attempting to do. The fact remains that articles related to Chabad have been proliferating and many have taken on the outright tone, stance and style of advertizing in keeping with Chabad's own known style. This is for the benefit and credibility of both Chabad and Wikipedia, that Wikipedia should not become a WP:MIRROR site for the tens of thousands of articles that appear on not just Chabad.org but on the hundreds of other pro-Chabad sites. Wikipedia needs to retain its stance of a WP:NPOV source of information, that will contain even WP:RS'd criticism of Chabad, and not be flooded with so-called articles that are just being foisted to promote one pro-Chabad cause only. Thank you, and Shabbat Shalom IZAK (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I'm concerned your comments are the issue; they are unacceptable on Wikipedia. They are not civil, they are not geared to the promotion of a working community of editors, and they are not geared to producing a better encyclopaedia. Look over your comments of the last week or two, on all these deletion requests as well as at Project Judaism and elsewhere, read them from a neutral point of view, and see how they appear. The accusations of a vast conspiracy to "take over WP" do not appear rational at all, and if they're not all the way into a personal attack on the Chabad editors they certainly come very close, and are way past civility. I am very concerned about it, and I think you should stop it and apologise before it goes any further. -- Zsero (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Zsero, notice how you do not respond to the issues but right away you choose to make this into something personal, so that you are now violating WP:NPA as if I or anyone objective is now accused of being "not rational" for the very rational and clear act of identifying a trend of the growing powers and influnce of pro-Chabad editors over the past few years (it's not an imgagined "conspiracy" either) who are planting more and more pro-Chabad articles on Wikipedia, often silly ones and guilty of violating content forking, see WP:POVFORK, and in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING and when anyone calls them on that they will scream and shout "you are irrational" etc for stating what is obvious and clear as daylight. It would be more helpful if we could see to it how the pro-Chabad editors can be brought in line and not function like a fifth-column whose aim is clearly to promote the pro-Chabad POV in articles about them and then stonewalling and blocking attempts to clarify and discuss how Chabad Judaism is not the be all and end all either either in Chabad articles or any others relating to any Judaic topic on Wikipedia (feel free to do so on Chabad.org or on any of the hundreds of Chabad sites and blogs online.) How else would you like to discuss this, beyond your personal preference for not discussing it? IZAK (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Izak responds with more of the same. He imagines a "a fifth-column" with "growing powers and influnce". This is utterly unacceptable behaviour and I must protest. As far as I'm concerned this is the issue; not the deletion of this or that article but an organised deletion campaign orchestrated in bad faith as an attack on Chabad-related editors. -- Zsero (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable institution that should have been speedily deleted. Chabad missionaries are trying to turn Wikipedia into a Chabad resource, a tool for their religious mission. This is a violation of what Wikipedia is all about. RK (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. What is a violation of what WP is all about is this kind of wild accusation. As for the article, it's a recently created stub and should be allowed some time to grow, as many similar articles have done before. If it still looks like this six months or a year from now, then delete away. -- Zsero (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, IZAK's words are really dry and totally fair, whatever he wrote somewhere else is not relevant here. Sure a bit more sensitivity could be used for a Jewish institution, but Afd rationale is completely acceptable and not harsh at all. --Shuki (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN synagogue. There is nothing to merge or redirect. At most, add to List of Chabad houses. --Shuki (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete add to List of Chabad houses. -- Avi (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or keep redirect to List of Chabad houses if notability can not be established, otherwise keep. Jbenjos (talk) 21:17, 28 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) 03:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This stub hasn't gone anywhere since the first AfD. Not a notable institution. One of hundreds just like it that serves as the home base for a local Chabad rabbi. Violates content forking WP:CFORK and also WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTDIRECTORY because Wikipedia is not Chabad.org. This should be merged and redirected to the main Chabad house article with a couple of sentences being more than sufficient. IZAK (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Chabad house per above. IZAK (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable institution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's been a while, and nothing more has been added; there's also no content that will be lost to the next person who tries to recreate it. But I repeat my comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Chabad of South London; Izak's remarks above are not acceptable and should be withdrawn. -- Zsero (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RK (talk • contribs)
Delete NN synagogue. There is nothing to merge or redirect. At most, add to List of Chabad houses. --Shuki (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete add to List of Chabad houses Avi (talk) 20:49, 27 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.