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

The result was snowball keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golconda Express[edit]

Golconda Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

fairly obviously not notable; it's a single slot on the train timetable. The fact that a single source says it was the fastest steam train in India does not allow it to pass WP:GNG, or WP:INDISCRIMINATE, for that matter. Ironholds (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fairly obviously notable as one can see from inspection of the sources per WP:BEFORE. These include lots of news coverage of a major derailment; coverage in books, including a complete book dedicated exclusively to this topic; and details of speed records and other facts about the service. And that's just in English; no doubt there is much more in the local languages of Urdu and Telegu, which will not appear in ordinary searches. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The coverage of a derailment does not denote coverage of a particular slot on a train timetable; notability is not inherited. Is there actually a complete book dedicated to a slot in a train timetable? Ironholds (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there is, as you would know if you had properly followed the deletion process rather than trying to set another speed record with a prodigious deletion spree. Your claim that the service is but a single slot in the timetable is the weak argument of WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. This is quite inadequate as a reason to delete as notability does not depend upon quantity. And, in any case, if there were any sense to that argument, the remedy would not be deleting but instead merger into a larger topic such as the line or the railway company. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The derailment received widespread coverage including debates in the national parliament. It can be added to the article. It is a named train service - that makes it slightly more than just "a particular slot on a train timetable". It used to hold the fastest train record in India. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "This train runs via Vijayawada, Warangal and Kazipet. This leaves Guntur at 5:45AM to reach Secunderabad at 13:45hrs. Return a second rake of this train leaves Secunderabad at 13:05hrs to reach Guntur at 21:20 hrs." implies a single slot. If the derailment is notable, it can be given separate coverage; again, notability is not inherited. The potters bar crash does not give that particular slot in the National Rail timetable notability. Ironholds (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references. Named passenger trains are usually individually notable, and are often quite different from one another in their equipment, length, schedules and pricing. - Eastmain (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Another reason why WP:BEFORE should be required. Nominations like this just waste time. Over-rapid NPP does not work well. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nomination declaring its notability does not seem well-thought out. It appears to be notable from article and sources. Something other than nominating for deletion would have been a better use of community time. Please consider. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 20:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not sure of the state of the article before the present, but at this point it seems to satisfy the notability guidelines and merits inclusion. Regards, Cocytus [»talk«] 04:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there seems to be sufficient coverage to pass the GNG. The book mentioned by Colonel Warden shoulkd be added to the article. DES ^(talk) 16:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it has a reference to a book citation and the fact when the book was published. I think the article needs more sources about the train though. --Bsadowski1 04:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It gets mentioned in a book for being the fastest steam passenger train in India back in 1973, plus has news coverage. Dream Focus 08:07, 6 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. SilkTork *^YES! 12:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali ‘Fingerz’ Esbai[edit]

Ali ‘Fingerz’ Esbai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT; his achievements are not enough, when not backed up by reliable sources, to pass. Forgive me if I don't think "Bahrain's Funniest Person" is a title that passes the entertainment guidelines :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, sources do not establish notability. Hairhorn (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Clean up as notability can be established though the article needs work. Sorry, that was based on a bad google search. Delete based on lack of notability. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 07:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you explain where notability is established? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable rapper/comedian. I don't think being named Funniest Person in Bahrain (an unsourced claim about a non-notable competition) cuts it.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone. JBsupreme (talk) 08:20, 7 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 redirect to Microsoft Office 2007#PDF. Straightforward result really. NJA (t/c) 08:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SaveasPDFandXPS[edit]

SaveasPDFandXPS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

fails WP:GNG; coverage, while there, is not sufficient to pass the test. It is all very brief, without the "significant" element required. Ironholds (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Microsoft Office 2007. Armbrust (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this deserves at most a footnote on the Office article. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 07:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Complete trivia. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Microsoft Office 2007#PDF. It's already discussed there. Pcap ping 11:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I support redirects in the cases of schools to their district, but I can't see how this warrants even a footnote in the Office article. JBsupreme (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's the official MS support for PDF in Office, and it was controversial to boot, being delayed/released separately by legal wrangling with Adobe? Pcap ping 11:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Microsoft Office 2007#PDF per Pcap. This is a plausible redirect to an article that contains more information about the subject. Cunard (talk) 07:27, 8 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. Sufficient consensus to suggest that the topic is non-notable exists. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Masters of the Universe vehicles[edit]

List of Masters of the Universe vehicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails notability criteria is WP:FANCRUFT, WP:TOYS,WP:NOTE Dwanyewest (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Fancruft is not a reason for deletion. Toys is a failed proposal - and in any case the toys of these vehicles (in aggregate) meet the proposed notability criteria. Masters of the Universe is quite notable. The vehicles of masters of the universe formed a massive and notable part in the series (not to mention the earlier mentioned range of toys). Certainly many of the individual vehicles are not notable - that's why many don't have their own articles - but in aggregate, notable and verifiable. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is so noteworthy provide reliable third person sources then.WP:SOURCES, it doesn't meet general notability WP:GNG Dwanyewest (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not for fan speculation or essays. There were no reliable sources, and as such constituted original research (specifically WP:SYNTH). If sources can be provided to demonstrate that this is notable in any real-world sense then sources should be added. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as statement says, the toylines are sold by Mattel and purely original research. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancruft, Toys, and Essays don't deserve mention, but WP:N and WP:RS are relevant. Masters of the Universe is a notable toyline in general ($1B profit, supposedly per Toy Monster: The Big, Bad World of Mattel p. 129), and can be found mentioned in books on toys, Mattel, Saturday morning cartoons, media and children's psychology and so on. Specific MOTU toys, or the MOTU vehicle line in general, I don't believe get such coverage. Items in a list don't have to rise to the same level of notability as the subject of an article, but are still subject to content policies Wikipedia:Lists#Listed items. That the items are redlinked and that some have already been created is also a problem; a Wikipedia:Red link asserts article-level notability and WP:V, which I don't believe will be the case. Шизомби (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• While we are at it Wind Raider, Talon Fighter, Battle Ram and Attak Trak need deletion as its part of the problem of fancruft.

Dwanyewest (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd support the WP:BUNDLE of those either in this AfD or perhaps a better option, a separate bundle for articles on MOTU vehicles, but read that and decide for yourself; it's not always a good idea. Consider also the options under WP:BEFORE. And again, it doesn't really help matters to keep saying "fancruft." The essay WP:FANCRUFT itself notes it can be uncivil and WP:ITSCRUFT is something to avoid. The main, major problems here are N, RS, V and maybe OR. Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm sure someone will let me know why I'm wrong, :) but I think that looking at a page full of red links shows that there is a lack of notability. If the subjects themselves aren't worthy of articles, then why would a list of them be any more worthy or notable? Sabiona (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red links aren't a valid reason to delete something. A list on Wikipedia isn't just to aid in navigation and link to various articles, but can also exist like an almanac, showing information about a notable subject. WP:LIST A massively profitable series of toys is rather notable to list. Dream Focus 08:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found a 1987 news story in Chicago Tribune that says the sales of these toys accounted for a billion dollars since 1982. All of the toys are notable, since they, and their insanely profitable sales, get news coverage. Plus common sense. You have a series that major, and this is a key part of it. You can't fit them all on one page, so its a valid content fork to split things into side articles for easier viewing. Dream Focus 08:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. If a product line (or lines) are notable then mention it as a footnote in the Masters of the Universe article, don't create a separate long list of unreferenced material. JBsupreme (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability and WP:V are issues. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'm not finding much on these, not even when searching by pairs of names in the list. Even collector's forums don't seem to arrange them this way. Maybe they were sold in packages with their riders? Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 7 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCoder[edit]

MediaCoder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article merits deletion because of:

Lack of Notability: This article neither asserts any notability nor there is any significant coverage on this subject in reliable sources.

1. The article itself claims no notability.

^(updated) False assertion of Notability: This article attempts to establish its notability through Bombardment of passing mentions in reliable sources. There is no significant coverage.

1. Sources mentioned in this article only touch the matter lightly. For an example of such sources, see below.
2. Searches conducted in Google Scholar, Google Books and Google News came up with only trivial coverages in form of passing mentions is sentences like "... in test that I conducted in MediaCoder..." or "...such as MediaCoder which supports CUDA..."
3. PC World Download does feature this product but no user has ever reviewed this product. Only a handful of users have rated it. No PC World Editor has reviewed this product.
4. CNET Download does feature this product but No CNET Editor has reviewed this product. Very few users have ever rated it.

Lack of reliable secondary sources: This artice does not cite any source except for a handful of insignificant instances.

Serious advertisement role: This article is written like an advertisement. It's primary contributor is Stanleyhuang (talk · contribs), the application developer, who has only contributed to this article and sees fit to dismiss the fact that this article is an Adware and instead write "MediaCoder is a freeware [~snip~] MediaCoder is free of charge and is supported by bundling OpenCandy software recommendation service in its installer." (Also see Serious statements from the author of MediaCoder) Fleet Command (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Updated 09:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 07:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This book has about a page and a half on it, although it's in Polish. Pcap ping 10:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Per the above source and two pages in This O'Reilly Japan book, and this this German book discusses it on two pages together with another (similar?) program called Super from eRightSoft. All of this does not amount to trivial coverage for a program of this kind. The nomination appears to be a case of "it's not popular with English speakers, so delete". Even if you don't grok those languages at all, you can tell it's the same program based on the screenshots. As for English user reviews, I had no trouble finding some of those too, and there are about 45 comments on the portal site for this kind of software (alexa rank). There's a web world wide outside CNnet... And the issue you take with the license, which can be fixed by editing, appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Found discussion of the adware issue too. Pcap ping 10:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia verifiability policy demands that "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I'm afraid you have found no single well-established authority which has commented on MediaCoder. What you've found is either blogs and forum posts or otherwise books that only lightly touch the matter. Note that SUPER, which you mentioned, also had an article in Wikipedia which is now deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way, what I mentioned is an issue of advertisement not license.Wikipedia is not an advertisement platform. Fleet Command (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • O'Reilly Media is not a reliable source for computing material? Pcap ping 13:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And WSiP (pl:WSiP) is considered the "Poland's top textbook publisher" according to Reuters. Pcap ping 09:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have not introduced a source from this publisher. Fleet Command (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Yeah? Pcap ping 09:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • More sources: [1] a Pearson Education book, [2] a tutorial in the netzwelt.de online magazine, which is a top 100 German site alexa entry, used a fair bit on the de.wiki -- at the bottom of their main page, they claim 1,57 million unique visitors per month. Pcap ping 10:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong reason: [3] It won the March 2009 round-up in Chip.de, an online mag in top 20 sites in Germany (alexa ranking). Pcap ping 15:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Objection: Your strong reason has one big problem: It compares MediaCoder with SUPER (whose article is deleted but you restored it) and XMediaRecode, all of which are equally non-notable.

      • You really need to stop bludgeoning, Pcap. Your sources all have at least one of the following problems:

        1. Obscure (45 user reviews is too little for reputation)
        2. Only touch the matter lightly (listing this software's name as converter is not enough)
        3. English speakers cannot verify

        Given the fact that English is considered the language of international communications, I expect you yo bring an example of a review from a notable source like PC Magazine, eWeek, PC World, Byte, etc. or an English book from a credible writer or from a credible publisher. Even an English blog post from a famous figure of computer world would suffice. Otherwise, you'll have to consider publishing this article in non-English Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • And let us not forget: This article has long been written like an advertisement. That is enough for deleting it. Fleet Command (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please drop this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Providing sources is not "bludgeoning" anything but your cognitive dissonance. The other articles of this kind you deleted were restored exactly because their topics are notable. Pcap ping 09:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And learn some foreign languages, or use google translate if you're lazy but distrustful. Pcap ping 09:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you insist on English sources, Martin Brinkmann's blog, ghacks.net is in the same ballpark with eWeek as far as audience goes [4] [5]. Pcap ping 09:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's make it clear for you: This article has three problems: Notability, Reliable sources and serving as an advertisement. All these problem must be solved if this article is to be included in Wikipedia; all not just one. In other word, if you incorporate all these sources in the article and even incorporate them in footnotes, the article must not look like the promotional product page of its web site plus some testimonials. (Providing testimonials is another well-know technique of advertisement.) A rule of thumb is: When you read a Wikipedia article about a product you must not feel that nothing is added to your knowledge than when you were reading its product page info.

  As you can see, notability is just your smallest issue.

  Fleet Command (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think notability has been clearly established from two dozen reliable sources. As for WP:PROMOTION, you don't seem to understand what that actually means. Here's an example where I explained why an article read promotional to me. Please do the same for this one; i.e. write on the talk page which passages you think fail WP:NPOV. Besides, these issues are normally fixed by editing, deleting the entire article is only the last resort if no reliable sources exists from which to write it in WP:NPOV, which clearly is not the case here. Pcap ping 09:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, looks like we have a difference of opinion. Obviously, I think this article is beyond redemption and you think there is no truth-telling saint that is more sacred than this article. I think it is time to stand down and have others cast their votes. Fleet Command (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looks like a decent article to me, I don't see what the bother is. Some of the writing is awkward but that's just a matter of WP:BETTER. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks, Edward Vielmetti. Fleet Command (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article seems reasonably balanced and the product has been recognized as significant by reliable sources. The article has 34 references, of which more than half seem to be in English. By surfing the web one can learn that the product is no longer open source, and the author seems to have unnecessarily placed himself in some licensing difficulties. This info, while interesting, has probably not been published by any reliable source yet, so it can't be included. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Thank you, Ed Johnston. Well said.

    However, I feel obliged to attract your attention to a quotation from WP:BIG:

    Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. An article on a topic is more likely to pass the notability test with a single article in Encyclopedia Britannica than because it has 1 million views on YouTube.

I nominated this article because it seems to me that sources which mention this product lack sufficient quality. For example, the USA Today source might sound like a very credible name. However, if you take a closer look, the only thing that it states is:

So you may need to convert a video to a different format. MediaCoder can convert videos between a variety of different formats. MediaCoder isn't the easiest program. But it will help you with difficult files. MediaCoder doesn't work with copy-protected videos. It will run on Macs, but features are limited.

— Kim Komando, USA Today column, 21 February 2008

You see? All it says is: MediaCoder is free but it is not one of the best. In my humble opinion, this source does not add to the notability of subject. The other source from USA Today, which our friend Pcap has introduced, says:

The camcorder may have come with software to do that. If not, MediaCoder is a free conversion program, but it's for advanced users. You can also try Nero 9 ($80), Pinnacle Studio Plus 12 ($100) or Sony Vegas Movie Studio Platinum ($85). With a Mac, use iMovie 8. Find links to all these programs at www.komando.com/news.

— Kim Komando, USA Today column, 6 November 2008]

Again, this source merely mentions the product in a passing manner and not as good solution but rather as an option to which one must succumb. In the mean time, Wikipedia notability guideline demands "significant coverage".

In my humble opinion, these sources only take away notability. It is not the matter of Lots of Sources, but rather, it is the matter of Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources.

Again, thanks for your opinion. It was a significant opinion. Fleet Command (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More example of insignificance of sources (English only)

Source	Problem
CNET Review	Only trivial coverage. The only mention of MediaCoder is "Video playback requires you to convert your files using the included MediaCoder application before transferring the files to the Memorex MMP8640."
Brisbane Times, 7 August 2008	Trivial mention. It just says "the supplied MediaCoder software isn't preset for the LXPI". No significant coverage as mandated by WP:N.
New York Times, 12 June 2008	Only trivial coverage. The only mention of MediaCoder is "The open-source program MediaCoder (mediacoder.sourceforge.net) may also work for you."
New York Times, 10 September 2008	Only trivial coverage. The only mention is "there are plenty of programs to choose from, and some, like MediaCoder (mediacoder.sourceforge.net) are free open-source solutions."
PC World Review	1. Due to use of vague phrases, it cannot be used to cite anything encyclopedic in the article, except for saying that "PC World mentioned it". Basically, all it says is: "MediaCoder is a converter with plug-ins that doesn't run on Vista." Only marginally useful in a Critical Reception section. 2. Obscure. Only one user has voted for the software.

Perhaps its best if someone with knowledge of foreign language check the other sources. Fleet Command (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most fantastic misrepresentation of sources I've ever seen in an AfD. Cherry picking the sources with the least coverage and tearing them up is an amazing straw man argument. I urge everyone to read the last paragraph in the lead of the actual article, and see in what context those sources are cited. Pcap ping 10:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cherry-picked sources with highest reputation for being reliable. And yes, I also encourage our readers to take notice of the context. Fleet Command (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the lead section, as written now, is yet another reason: It is advertisement-like: Remember those street advertisers who try to stop you in the street and say: "Please! Please try our brand! It is certified by this and that. It's this celebrity and that celebrity’s favorite. It is the highest-selling in this country and that country." That's how the lead section of this article looks like. Fleet Command (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Coverage documented by Pcap indicate notability. Can the article be improved? Sure. But that's never been an argument for deletion. TJRC (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: and improve it (in near future). Deletionists, please do not ruin people's work (even that's ad, copied or something else). Fix, not delete. Silverlife (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. This article fails Wikipedia General Notability Guideline as it has received no significant coverage from reliable independent sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasay rewelra babe (talk • contribs) 03:49, January 6, 2010
  • Comment: The above was written by User:Rasay_rewelra_babe, who worked exclusively on the article of the competing SUPER (software). See Special:Contributions/Rasay_rewelra_babe. Oddly enough, he thought that SUPER should be kept because it won the 3rd place in the Chip.de round-up, but wants the winner deleted. Pcap ping 10:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it wasn't notable, it wouldn't be mentioned so often, in so many different news sources. For software, that is enough. Dream Focus 23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is insufficient. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fleet Command (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: I have discovered that MediaCoder had been a nominee of SourceForge 2007 Community Award Choice for Best Multimedia Project award (although it lost to Audacity). Therefore, there is no argument that MediaCoder is a notable subject. The issue of advertisement can now be easily resolved. I'd like to withdraw from this nomination. Fleet Command (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You can withdraw your nomination, but delete votes are still outstanding from two other editors, so the AfD should be allowed to run as usual. EdJohnston (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I dropped "from". Fleet Command (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a well known converter app, and seems to have many reviews (Far more than some software on Wikipedia) the article does need tidying up and the tone needs changing but not deleting, methinks Fleet Command is protesting rather loudly for little reason? ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 17:21, 7 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 redirect to Microsoft PowerToys. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel[edit]

Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Nomination: This article fails to meet Wikipedia notability guideline requirements as it has failed to introduce significant coverage in secondary sources. Although this article has introduced sources, these sources only trivially mention the subject and provide no significant coverage.

Reason for re-nomination:

1. The reason given for abrupt closure of the first nomination is outweighed by the non-notability of this article. Good- or bad-faith, this article remains not notable.
2. The reason given for abrupt closure of the first nomination is invalid: Although I asked Joe Chill (talk · contribs) to nominate the article for deletion, I did alert him of the issue of faith. Fleet Command (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 07:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PERNOM --Hm2k (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redrect to Microsoft PowerToys where it's already covered. I've not seen any article discuss this one separately, but there are plenty of reliable independent sources for the PowerToys as a set. Pcap ping 13:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Power_Calculator, which I nominated for the same reason. Pcap ping 13:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Pcap. I agree. I did not know it is part of PowerToys. Fleet Command (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect to Microsoft PowerToys. --Hm2k (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me? Redirect and Keep are antonyms, aren't they? Keep means "don't touch" but Redirect means "delete contents, replace with a redirect to ..." (as was the case with List of ISO image software.) Merge is the middle ground: It means "merge the contents, delete contents of the original, replace with a redirect". Fleet Command (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two nominations within a week for a stub seems unduly harsh. Justin talk 17:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Repeated nominations Fleet Command (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Microsoft PowerToys. TJRC (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Microsoft PowerToys after merging any useful information - EdoDodo ^talk 16:51, 7 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. Notability not established under guidelines SilkTork *^YES! 12:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter John[edit]

Peter John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Cllrs are not generally deemed notable under WP:POLITICIAN. If he were leader of the council, or a cabinet member, this would be another matter, but as things stand, appears to be promotional, anticipating future notability. (Article appears to have been created by the subject, and edited in large part by his co-Cllrs, so although they're obviously welcome in the debate, please do read our policies on notability, reliable sources, verifiability, bios of living people and politicians first if you don't come here often) Saalstin (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obviously fails WP:POLITICIAN. For WP:GNG there seems to be a fair bit of coverage in local news but nothing beyond that. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:POLITICIAN (which I think this person easily pases) does not trump WP:GNG. It's the opposite.--Oakshade (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And I've said he passes neither. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Elected council person in major city. Easily passes both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:POLITICIAN. Has significant coverage from reliable independent sources.[6][7] Is even Southwark Labour Party leader.--Oakshade (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a big difference between "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city", per WP:POLITICIAN, and "members of a borough council (one of many) within a major metropolitan city", per this guy. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The "reliable sources" you mention appear to be from a local community website published by a "small family-run web and print publishing business". As it is small and local, independence and reliability cannot be taken for granted. Stronger sources need to be identified if the article is to be viable. Road Wizard (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is and was absolutely no "local sources don't count" clause in WP:GNG. If a "local" source has editorial control over its content and is independent of the topic, it is a reliable source, per WP:SOURCES. And besides, we're talking about a major borough of London, not a little community. --Oakshade (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is about the quality of the source and publisher, not the size of the local community. Depending on the circumstances of each case, a local community website may be more or less reliable than a blog. My point is that it cannot automatically be assumed that the website is reliable; that is a subjective judgement based on the known quality of the publisher and their ability to verify facts. As is stated in the guidance you linked to, "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."

A "small family-run web and print publishing business" could be as reliable as The Daily Telegraph or as unreliable as the Daily Sport. Unless there is some strong evidence of the publisher's reliability I would place the quality of it somewhere between a blog and a local newspaper. That is a fairly weak source on which to place the foundation of an entire article. Road Wizard (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the source London SE1 (SE1 is the postal code for south London, btw). It could be owned by a family or Rupert Murdoch (DT). It doesn't matter. What matters to WP:GNG is independent editorial control over its content. In the case of London SE1, while you are calling it weak, it actually appears to be a very thorough journalistic news source for south London.--Oakshade (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Existing source material is very weak; 6 from the council website referring to one of the councillors (basically a self-published source), 1 from the local Labour party about their councillor (another self-published source), 1 from a blog (Operation Black Vote) and 1 from a local community website of unknown reliability. The strongest source appears to be the Financial Times, but the reference is trivial (1 sentence out of the whole article, and much of that is a quote about somebody else). The article needs far more independent, non-trivial, reliable sources to be sustainable. Road Wizard (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Oakshade argues, passionately and accurately, that the GNG trumps the subject's failure to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. Indeed it does, but I'm missing the part where there's a single reliable source discussing Mr. John in "significant detail," as the GNG requires. Google News UK returns a dozen hits for the past year from the Southwark News (which its own website claims to be a borough weekly with a circulation of 9,660), each and every one of them a quote about some local political issue or another, but none about Mr. John.  Ravenswing  09:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Snappy (talk) 12:41, 4 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. SilkTork *^YES! 12:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of the night (Book)[edit]

Killing of the night (Book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

It appears that this book has never been published, and the page author is one of the people listed as the book authors. Prod removed by page author. PRobably shold have been speedied, but with rejected prod, moving on to this. ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:47, 31 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)).

Question - under which criteria could it have been speedied? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from the mouth of the writer I AM THE WRITER AND THE BOOK IS REAL i didnt go to a big publsing company and done it all from home only 50 copies of the book were made but more is getting printed out as i type any so no you wont find it online because its not published by a big company.

• My name is Bethany and I am the creator of the article. I would just like to say in objection to this deletion request that this book IS a real book, and that the author of the deletion request has no evidence of this. I am also going to state that I am not the author of the book. Someone called Bethany Hawkins is the joint author, but I am not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebethseesall (talk • contribs) 20:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence (such as a verifiable ISBN number) that the book even exists, let alone that it fulfils the criteria for notable books. Hqb (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that an article about a book needed any ISBN number of such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebethseesall (talk • contribs) 21:09, 31 December 2009

See WP:BK#Threshold standards. Hqb (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The question is not whether the book exists, but whether it is notable enough to appear in an encyclopedia. This book is not yet notable, which at least requires notice by the outside world. Until then, the article is an advertisement, which is not appropriate for this forum. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE There are plenty of articles on books on this website and I don't see why my article is any different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebethseesall (talk • contribs) 21:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : Nearly all the articles about books on this site are about books with notability -- published books that third-party sources have written about. In order for this article to stay, proof is needed that (1) the book exists (2) it has been published and (3) it's been written about or discussed in third-party sources (sources not related to the book's publisher or author). These are required, and the burden of proof using verifiable, reliable sources is on the writers of the article -- in other words, I don't have to prove the book isn't notable or that the book doesn't exist, the article's authors and editor need to prove existence and demonstrate notability. IS ther any way that you can help us out here by providing such evidence? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete home published books with no outside coverage are not notable. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 07:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:V and WP:NOTBOOK, obviously, as vanity press printing. I strongly urge the creator of the article to review the links found at WP:PILLAR to get a handle on how to properly select subjects for article creation and on Wikipedia policies and guidelines; that her first edit was to vandalize a user page was a poor beginning.  Ravenswing  09:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: As already stated, this is a discussion, not a vote, and my first edit was not a vandilisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebethseesall (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Your first edit was this one [8]. On Wikipedia, we generally hold that putting as someone's user page is vandalism.  Ravenswing  21:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That was not my first edit.--Thebethseesall (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: As a new user, we understand that you're unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, but any user can easily see the entire contribution history of any other user. That was, in point of fact, your first edit.  Ravenswing  04:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Indented because you cannot !vote twice. --Thinboy00 @949, i.e. 21:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the book were published, there would be at least one hit on Google for the title + Bethany, or the title + Blayne. Apart from this article, of course. If it is written but not yet published, it would fall under WP:CRYSTAL. If it is published online, no-one will be able to find it at present. If it is not written, it is a hoax. In any of these cases, the only verdict can be 'delete'. It's quite a good plot idea, slightly reminiscent of Groundhog Day and another whose name escapes me, but different enough to succeed. If it is published - other than by a vanity publisher or self-publisher like lulu.com - then let us know who by and when. I doubt that this information can be given. If it is written but not published, then do keep trying to get it in print - even via lulu perhaps. That won't get it on here, but it might then get taken up by a bigger publisher. Peridon (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted without having noticed post from one of the authors above. Doesn't affect my opinion. Peridon (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the author's own words: "done it all from home only 50 copies of the book were made"; thus, easily fails WP:BK. The fact that there are other articles about books doesn't mean any article is accepted willy-nilly. Best of luck with your work, but at this point the subject doesn't meet notability standards. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first edit was a page on Bethany Hawkins, about the author of this book, in fact. So no, that was not my first edit.--Thebethseesall (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball Speedy Delete under A7 and G11. Clearly someone having an ego trip. Not even close to reaching WP:BK. --A1octopus (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to Bethany mainly (and others please note) Please do not delete posts on this page. If you have an issue over what someone says, you may take it up in the relevant place. If you want to cancel a comment of your own, use strikethrough. As to your first edit, if the Bethany Hawkins article was deleted before the alleged incident referred to above, your edit there would disappear from sight in your contribs list, so the edit referred to here would look like your first edit. It may be that someone owes you an apology. It may be the other way round. Peridon (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, good point ... since I'm not an admin, I don't see edits to deleted pages. I'm perfectly happy to correct myself to say that Thebethseesall's earliest surviving edit was to vandalize a user page.  Ravenswing  21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for that. Bethany, shake hands? Peridon (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure --Thebethseesall (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Peridon (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, not even a proper Wikipedia article, no isbn or anything. Jameswa21 (talk) 01:11, 6 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) 06:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Style over substance fallacy[edit]

Style over substance fallacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is article is a fork, as the text itself notes that the various examples are based on other fallacies, such as the red herring or ad hominem. There is no evidence of verifiability due to the lack of sources. On a Google search, this Wiki article is the topmost hit, with all others being NN websites. We're not a compendium for original research; this article should never have happened. WaltCip (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If this were a commonly recognized fallacy, I would expect it to garner a fair number of Google Books hits. It only garners three, and two of those are to books which copied much of their content from Wikipedia under our free license. [9] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable neologism. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 07:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists "Style Over Substance" as one of its fallacies [10]. However this fallacy seems to be a subtype of the ad hominem (which itself is a subtype of red herring). --Mark PEA (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, style over substance fallacy should be subtext for the ad hominem page. I don't think there's enough content here to warrant a separate article, though. --WaltCip (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:OR and WP:RS. South Bay (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR and the fact that it's a skimpy definition backed by five skimpy examples. ♠The Ace of Spades^♣♥_♦ 01:23, 6 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) 06:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOUIT[edit]

SOUIT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. Article is about a neologism, with no reliable sources provided or found. Google search for the entire term (Service Oriented User Interface Technology) returns two results - both from Wikipedia. TNXMan 20:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable neologism, nom is exactly right.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a neologism per WP:NEO; lack of significant coverage by reliable third parties. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO Even the web site stated to have coined the term states it should be used "so that the movement can gain pace" and appears as a vanity web page as seen here. Also can not find any secondary reliable sources Calmer Waters 08:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism that has not caught on. --Apoc2400 (talk) 01:24, 6 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagg Bozied[edit]

Tagg Bozied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

A career minor leaguer. Is he really notable? Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep According to the article, he played in top level professional league in Taiwan. Spanneraol (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd say he is notable. He was in spring training with the Florida Marlins last year and almost made the team. He signed with the Phillies for the next season. He holds several records in home runs (USF's all-time home-run leader). Does anyone know another player, who ruptured his left patella tendon while celebrating a game winning homer? Maybe Google results are few, but that does come from confusion on his name (Tagg, Robert). Even I as a German user on WP know his name and have Bozied on my watch list. I plead to keep the article about this baseball player, though he has not reached MLB level. --Goodgirl - talk to me 09:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs serious clean-up but Triple-A is a "fully professional" league per WP:ATHLETE. Please see, Professional#Sports and Professional baseball. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. Several reasons:

• Conference Player of the Year in college - sufficient to establish notability as an amateur.
• Played in a top-level foreign league (i.e. Taiwan) - sufficient to establish notability per Wikiproject Baseball's notability guidelines.
• Starting first baseman for Team USA in 1999 - also sufficient to establish notability per Wikiproject Baseball's notability guidelines.
• Also meets WP:GNG - full profiles in the 2003 and 2004 editions of Baseball America's annual prospect guide, as well as numerous newspaper articles (San Francisco Chronicle, ESPN.com, The Rocky Mountain News, The Florida Sun-Sentinel, etc.) Many more available, if necessary. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:43, 4 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. G11. And WP:ONEDAY , WP:PROMOTION, etc. SilkTork *^YES! 12:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corretto (coffee roaster)[edit]

Corretto (coffee roaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The only source I can find for this (in Google News and Books, and even Web) is the Coffee Snobs forum mentioned in the article. Besides a large number of unverified statements, the article is a bit too much a how-to, but the basic issue: I don't see notability established by independent, reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe add a small note at Coffee roaster. Not showing notability on its own yet. 2 says you, says two 19:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:11, 7 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. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential prevarications (United States)[edit]

Presidential prevarications (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article is a POV war just waiting to happen.

For this article to avoid permanent POV issues, at the very least there has to be some consensus standard that can be used to determine which Presidential lies make it into the article and which ones aren't notable enough. For the life of me I can't imagine what such a standard would be. Without such a standard, you don't have an article, you're going to have a chain of frequently-reverted essays on "Why President X, Who I Hate And You Should Too, Lies Like A Rug".

(This is completely apart from the issue that "prevarications" in the title of the article sounds too elaborate and cutesy, which I realize is not a valid reason for deletion at AFD.) ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article presents arbitrary information. It leaves and impression that certain presidents did not lie or tell "untruths". It is subjective in its approach. I do not think the author intends to mislead and I don't detect a slanted bias. However, the omissions are misleading and the article does not provide comprehensive information or a solid thesis. While the effort and research are good, the article should be removed. Mike x moran (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly lean toward thinking that this article is problematic, but I don't see where the person bringing it to AFD has raised any reason for removal based in WP policy or guideline. Could someone provide one? Please provide a link to the relevant policy or guideline. Otherwise, this seems like a Wikipedia:I just don't like it type argument. Locke9k (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some of my thinking for why the article should be removed:

The article does not adequately cover all presidents' untruths, so as the author states in his/her postings it is a means to keep watch on the presidents. WP is not a forum for a soap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

WP is not an forum for advocacy, as stated by the author "I think there's a climate of presidential worship in America, and articles like this one can help people see that presidents are merely people too, with foibles, with passions, emotional people who can and will and do make mistakes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

It is an original work and incomplete representation of the facts. By omission the article suggests that T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson did not lie. The subject topic is newly named and is not providing information on existing work or thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

I find it to be relatively well thought out and very interesting. If it was a blog or a book I would read it and LOVE to discuss and argue the points. Kudos to the author. It should be deleted from WP simply because it doesn't belong here. Mike x moran (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response by the article's creator[edit]

I created this article. I'm responding to these dubious challenges.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may not agree with the challenges, but they aren't "dubious". You did a fine job with the article. It is something to be proud of. The only discussion I see is if it belongs on Wikipedia. I have not seen any posting questioning your or your work in a personal way. Stating that the challenges are "dubious" is dismissive and could be considered insulting. Based on your writing and other postings I would assume that is not what you meant, but I don't presume to speak for you. 68.194.178.228 (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I totally disagree with the argument "POV wars about to happen" is valid. The article has been around for a month. But there have been NO POV wars. Why? Frankly, an editor's thinking that an article is similar to another article in which there were POV wars is an example of lackluster thinking at its finest. Further, all Wikipedia articles have some kind of WP:POV issues to varying extents. Articles like United States and Foreign policy of the United States have had huge POV concerns, and people will battle over them. It's the battling itself that's a recognized part of the fundamental process why Wikipedia works, because different opinions are allowed to battle each other, and articles improve as a result. Frankly, I'm more worried about articles which don't get much debate; sometimes, stupid thinking can fester in them for years.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second, so my second point is that POV warring, if and when it does happen, isn't necessarily bad.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third, the criticism that "I can't think of what a standard for presidential lying should be" is a nebulous criteria for deleting an article. There are numerous articles in which there is disagreement about what constitutes a proper standard. And this lack of agreement, in itself, isn't enough to justify deletion. And, here's my proposed standard for what constitutes a presidential lie: (1) coverage in major newspapers (2) attention by political scientists (3) coverage by major comedians like Stephen Colbert. By this criteria, the best overall lies are Clinton's "I did NOT have sex with that woman" and Nixon's "I am NOT a crook". I think these are the two leading contenders, but I realize others may have favorites. Notice that both a Democrat (Clinton) and a Republican (Nixon) are emphasized here; this isn't about partisan politics.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth, I think this IS the PRECISE TYPE OF ARTICLE FOR WIKIPEDIA. It merits inclusion because it holds ALL presidents accountable. If they LIE, they go here in Wikipedia. It's an incentive for current and future presidents to TELL THE TRUTH. That's what Wikipedia is all about, in my view. It's important. Presidential lying, when it happens, MATTERS. The word "prevarications" by the way, was a way to avoid the harsher sounding "Presidential Lies" which, for me, sounded too judgmental and too POV-ish. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, for these reasons, my vote is:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My above four reasons: POV warring hasn't happened; if it does, we'll deal with it then and even if it does, it will probably a good thing. It isn't partisan (both R and D presidents are included). The subject of which lies to include will always be subject to debate, but it's very similar to WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY; we're talking notable lies, important ones, whoppers. The article is well referenced. Last, it holds politicians feet to the fire; if they LIE, they go in WIKIPEDIA. An incentive to TELL THE TRUTH. And, moreover, let me just say, although this ISN'T a valid Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, but it IS for me; this article is fun. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inherently subjective and POV. You can't sensibly create objective standards for what constitutes a "prevarication" - even "coverage in reliable sources" wouldn't do the job because genuinely reliable sources will be too cautious to call a President a liar. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is a magnet for original research and personal opinion. Example: Jeferson "prevaricated" when he said he "would uphold the Constitution" in his oath of office, then he purchased Louisiana. A response could be that the opportunity to purchase Louisiana was an unforeseen opportunity, rather than a grand scheme he had in mind when he took office. Ditto for Clinton not having "sexual relations" with "that woman." There is no evidence he had coitus with her, and there was a journal article during the impeachment showing that youth in the US do not consider fellatio to be "sexual relations." It a mess now with no indication it will get better, since it is and will be mired in partisan opinion. Edison (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article's topic has severe problems with bias in that a president's detractors are likely to seize on any misstatement as being a lie, while his supporters are likely to try to seek excuses or attempt to prove that his statement was accurate or at least not an intentional lie. This problem is likely to be most apparent with regard to recent presidents such as Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, which also raises the issue of recentism. There is also an issue with regard to defining what a lie is. I would not consider a broken promise to be a lie, unless the promiser never intended to fulfill the promise. Several of the alleged lies in the article are really just broken promises, and that's not the same thing. And what do we do about things like Obama's claim to have visited "57 states" during his campaign (not currently listed in this article, but then no Obama statements currently are)? Obviously, that wasn't a true statement, but does that make it a lie per se? (The following are additional problems which may not necessarily be reasons for deletion: Note that the article currently identifies only two "prevarications" made by any of the first 31 presidents. Unfortunately, I believe it is much more likely that editors will try to supply evidence of lies by Clinton, Bush, and Obama than by Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, and James Buchanan, thus leaving this article perpetually biased toward covering lies by the recent presidents. And the article has some irrelevant material, such as Parson Weems' myth about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, which was not said by Washington himself, but about him after his death, and Abraham Lincoln's joke about being "two-faced". Finally, the article contains an excessive number of footnotes used merely to prove the order of the presidents, which is in no dispute anyway.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also note that something like 2/3 of all of the "prevarications" listed in this article are referenced to a single article from The Atlantic (see [11]), and several of the remainder are not referenced at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:ATTACK. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable. Thinboy00 @956, i.e. 21:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While I tend to see problems with this page, its not clear to me from any argument made thus far how it is in conflict with any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Many of the statements in the page are cited, so its not clear to me how it is unverifiable. Furthermore, the fact that a subject is contentions or a magnet for POV wars is no reason at all to delete. Arguments that the page will be 'used' for some particular purpose are irrelevant. Can someone explain a way in which a Wikipedia policy or guideline requires deletion of this page? Can you explain how it is non-notable, unverifiable, or something else Wikipedia is not? Locke9k (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole point of this article appears to be to characterize various statements as lies, which seems to be a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just thought I'd come back and explain the "unverifiable" thing. Although it is verifiable that various "prevarications" have occurred, we cannot easily verify whether a given event constitutes a "prevarication" or not ("prevarication" isn't well defined, in a sense). Hence the article is inherently unverifiable. This comment is an anachronism (see time stamps in signatures). --Thinboy00 @991, i.e. 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Need a policy? See verifiability and WP:NPOV. Edison (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Revisionists always seem to make lies out of truth and truth out of lies. Partisan cites can be found for just about any Presidental Prevacation one way or the other--Mike Cline (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mkativerata. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 07:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'd like to reiterate from the article creator above: "Fourth, I think this IS the PRECISE TYPE OF ARTICLE FOR WIKIPEDIA. It merits inclusion because it holds ALL presidents accountable. If they LIE, they go here in Wikipedia. It's an incentive for current and future presidents to TELL THE TRUTH. That's what Wikipedia is all about, in my view." To quote from Jed Bartlett, "there it is." This article is the creator's soapbox, and just on that alone - never mind the BLP or the POV issues - this article cannot stand.  Ravenswing  09:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Interesting idea but WP:YDIW. WP:NOT#FactCheck.org. Redirect to Almost everything a President has ever said. An infinitely large subject; we don't have articles on All crows that are black; maybe Presidential truthtelling (United States) would be a manageable size. There's only "one source," a 2007 magazine article, for the Washington "cherry tree" story being false, and it only "suggests" it "probably" is? In all seriousness, there are some books on the subject such as When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences‎, Big Bush Lies: The 20 Most Telling Lies of President George W. Bush, The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq, Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You, To Err Is Reagan: Lies and Deceptions from the President, and so on and articles like "The Contemporary Presidency: Presidential Lies" in Presidential Studies Quarterly, but as a practical matter I don't know how one would do an encyclopedia article about it, for the reasons others have stated above. Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite aside that, as has been accurately stated above, whether a President "lies" or not these days comes down overwhelmingly on whether he belongs to the political party for which you vote.  Ravenswing  18:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For the reasons others have stated above, as you accurately state above "has been accurately stated above," I agree. In fact, for the reasons stated above, I wrote "for the reasons others have stated above." So above all other reasons, for the above reasons. :-) Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Switching from Keep to Delete. Yes I'm coming around to agreeing with all you fine people. Yes it was fun creating it; but it will be even more fun deleting the fuc--r. I only wish we could all gather around the article and, somebody with a plunger, could blow it to smithereens. Years back, my buddies and I spent a day making this model of a fort with popsicle sticks and glue during the day; but at night, we gathered around outside, and lit it up! Such fun! Too bad Wikipedia doesn't have something similar where we could take out an article and LIGHT IT UP or somehow watch it go POOF. I always think Wikipedia should be fun fun fun, and it's too bad we can't have some fun moment where we all destroy stuff, like kicking down a sandcastle is AS fun or MORE than actually building the critter. In the future I'll probably write more articles for the express purpose of enjoying the destruction cause I think that's what's great about this weird experiment called Wikipedia. I think on some level that we can all grasp the weirdness, that creating and destroying are what's so great about life.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Forget destroy, someone, perhaps you, could write a coffee table book with this material. I'll write volume 2, Biblical prevarications!! I like the concept of your article, but wikipedia, imho, is not the proper venue.--Milowent (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There's always Wikipedia:Subpages for experimenting or trying to develop an article that might not make it when written in the articlespace, and you can delete your own subpages as you like. Doing so in the articlespace, if you're serious, would be WP:Disruptive editing, I suspect. There might be wikis for collaborative writing of pieces that don't fit the concept of an encyclopedia, but I'm not familiar with what options might exist in that regard. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete while i think we can all agree that its a well documented fact that most, if not all, US presidents have lied while in office, what makes this notable? individual instances may be notable. lying UNDER OATH is ALWAYS notable for a public figure. but this article sets up a structure that is inherently pov. Why is this subject so important? because someone wants to show that presidents are human? great goal, great website idea, lousy encyclopedia article. of course, the article name is utterly hopeless due to its unnecessary assonance, but even if changed to, say "presidential lies" what makes presidential lies specifically important? the president is held to no greater degree of honesty than any other public official not under oath, or for that matter anybody. the prez is not elected to tell the truth, but on the basis of the success of their campaign to show that they can perform the duties of prez: signing bills into law, negotiating treaties, etc. some of this may REQUIRE telling lies. its not against the law to lie, generally. I just see this as a huge effort to push a point of view. if there were numerous books and articles on the subject of presidential lies (not books which simply mention specific lies), i would say yes, write an article. Noam Chomsky would see every president since truman tried for treason. was that for lying, or for executive actions? keep the important instances in the articles on each president.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherently subjective. One man's prevariation is another man's diplomatic hedging. Lying is a common allegation against presidents one dislikes, while never alleged against presidents one likes. I will say this article is laudably nonpartisan, but still suffers a number of problems including original research and recentism. It'd inherently non-encyclopedic. However, it would make a great web page or blog, and I would suggest the author consider that outlet instead of Wikipedia. (presidentialprevarications.com?) --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Melanie[reply]
• Strong delete. The essay is incredible POV. Selective bolding of words show the POV. Also, the idea of counting "lies" told during public statements in the interest of national security as being the same as lies told under oath about getting a blowjob is apples and oranges. The format (the boxes) don't allow for significant comparison by differing POV's. Instead it just says "here is the truth" as a statement of fact. Was Nixon a "crook"? That would depend on how you define crook, wouldn't it? When I hear "crook", I think thief. Nixon lied. Is that being a "crook"? Depends on who you ask, but this thing simply says "he was". Runs afoul of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and possibly WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 7 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of creatures in Primeval[edit]

List of creatures in Primeval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unnotable list of fictional creatures from the Primeval series. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, and series already has a List of Primeval characters for discussions specific creators relavant to the series. Bulk of article "sources" are from the series and other primarily sources, with other actual reliable sources being used for WP:OR to "prove" personal views about the creators while not actually referencing the series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There appears to be sources from Metro, Digital Spy and Radio Times amongst others, therefore establishing notability. WossOccurring (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at those sources? The Digital Spy article is about Flemyng and Rouass joining the cast, and is not significant coverage of neither the "Dracorex" section where it is used nor the topic as a whole. The Radio Times article is an interview with the creators and again, not significant coverage of neither the "Pristichampsus" nor the topic as a whole. The Metro article never even MENTIONS the series at all, it is purely about sabre-tooth cats. Again, what notability has been established for this topic? None at all.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but it needs serious work, particularly distinguishing the background about the RL creatures from their role in the series. I'm glad we've gotten away from the absurdity of trying to make individual articles on each individual creature, as we might have done 2 years ago. I don't see any real overlap with List of Primeval characters. I gather the nom correctly thinks the characters list an appropriate article--and then so is this. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not. There is a major difference (and please don't presume to guess what I think about the character list). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: poorly sourced and full of OR. Bondegezou (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are editorial issues and are not excuses to delete articles. WossOccurring (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Characters" pages certainly do not cover the same ground. And is it kosher to do an AFD without any discussion or even mention on the talk page? And while I have the article on my "Watch" list, I didn't notice this change till today, as adding the AFD tag was described, very disingenuously I think, as "add missing tag", so I didn't bother to even look at the page when I saw the notification. Was that deliberate? And doing it at Christmas also seems designed to get under the radar of interested parties. And -- the link to "this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page" is broken/red, by design, accident or carelessness, I don't know. Took me 10 minutes to find this page. Barsoomian (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you express any more good faith there?. Twinkle messed up in adding the tag, so I fixed it, and didn't realize the template didn't pick up the page name the way it made it sound like it would. Doing it on Christmas is irrelevant. Wikipedia is active enough, the AfD is 7 days long, and not everyone celebrates. Why don't you reread WP:AGF and then rethink your "keep" argument, which doesn't even give a keep reason beyond you seem to mistakenly think it was done in a bad manner and like it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks very suspicious. Everything seemed to have been designed to let it slip by without anyone noticing and made it difficult to object. Just putting "add missing tag" for an AFD? Give me a break. I had to troll back and forward through the history to find when the AFD was made before I could even find this page, linked to the date. That removed any initial assumption of good will. What do you mean by "series already has a List of Primeval characters"? Are you suggesting all the beasts should be put there? Doesn't seem appropriate. And my other reasons for "Keep" have been expressed well enough by others, above and in the previous AFD, so I will just add my vote. Barsoomian (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extend AfD period I am a disinterested party to the contents of the article, but I find the discussion about timing and flagging to be of interest. How the AfD was done, and its timing, are not directly relevant to the suitability of the end-product article. However, adding another 7 days to this discussion should be acceptable to both sides, and put an end to the potential for incivility.DaveCW (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is really not a useful suggestion. He obviously found the AfD fairly quickly, and it was easily findable by looking on the AfD log. At most, extending it 4 days because that's how long it took anyone to notice the link was broken is all that would be needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not "easily". It took 10 minutes screwing around, no thanks to you. Not everyone is as familiar as you with the "AFD log" and how it works. And who knows how many people gave up on the dead link you made supposedly to this page.Barsoomian (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No more or less worthy of inclusion than List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens. More "encyclopedic" perhaps since most of these creatures are closely based on known real animals, whose entries are cross-referenced when possible. Since many creatures appear in more than one episode, a reference amalgamating these appearances and background on the real creatures that they are based on is a useful reference; and inevitably pages for individual creatures will keep being recreated if the list page is deleted. Barsoomian (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as this editor has already stated keep before. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You complained I didn't explain my reasoning before, so I expanded on it. I'm sure they can count unique votes without your help. Barsoomian (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is no need to delete useful content. Watch out for WP:OR tho.--Knulclunk (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Helps keep the kiddies off the scientific articles describing the animals this series is based upon. ;) More seriously, it looks like there are references, so someone has tried to keep the article in halfway decent shape. No reason to delete something someone found useful enough to add this many citations to. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the proper way to handle such lists, and notability has not somehow evaporated in the two years since the last "keep". It has not been abandoned since then, receiving some care and attention. What is prudent is to encourage more, not delete. Further, "characters" and "creatures" are not the same, and the implied merging of these listed creatures into the list of Primeval characters would A) woefully overburden List of Primeval characters, and B) most certainly invite the later deletion of the creatures from the character list because they are not characters. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A useful list for those seeking information on a notable subject. Dream Focus 21:21, 6 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 Speedy delete A7 Jac16888^Talk 23:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decing[edit]

Decing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

According to the WHOIS data, this article was created just five days after the website that it describes. The service or its software may (or may not) be an interesting, novel idea, but this website does not seem to have received enough public attention yet to be considered encyclopedically notable. No references (cf. WP:GNG), basic facts missing (such as owners, seat, business models). The creator's user name suggests a conflict of interest. HaeB (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable brand new web site. I haven't found anything in a reliable source about this.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete this one's a no-brainer. 2 says you, says two 20:01, 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. That the station exists is not evidence of it meeting notability requirements. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sting FM[edit]

Sting FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio station. Joe Chill (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This IS a station in Birmingham UK. As the article states it is only for Birmingham, UK. It does not broadcats online and it has limited range, even people in Birmingham can have difficulty is receiving it. Therefore there will be many people who have not heard of it. However there is a link to support the information contained which proves the article contains valid facts and therefore should not be deleted. --Cexycy (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can you explain Sting FM's notability, as currently it appears to fail WP:N? The link appears to be dead. Rapido (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have updated the article to link to its current URL. As I have said with other pirate radio stations, how can I prove they exist? Have you ever read up on numbers stations? They don't officially exist yet there are articles on them. This is because all pirate or numbers stations don't "officially" exist but really they do, if you get what I mean. If you read the URL now, this should help support the article and I hope you understand my point on keeping the article and a few others which you have already queried. --Cexycy (talk) 00:35, 27 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) 08:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As I have said before this station does exist and I think it is very notable that an unlicenced radio station has been broadcasting for over 10 years and not suffered any legal action, despite broadcasting 24 hours a day. Most pirate stations need to shut down so they can move the equipment to another place to stop the police tracing them. I have already asked, how am I supposed to prove this exists, unless you visit Birmingham, UK with a radio and tune in to 107.5 FM? I can say that I live in Birmingham and this is how I know about it. I also knwo the signal is quite week, hence this mention in the article. I also said the numbers stations and other Pirates dont officially exist however there are articles on them. What makes this article so special it has to be deleted? I have done a few google searches and there are minimal mentions elsewhere. Unless you can prove this station does not exist it would be unfair to delete the article. --Cexycy (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unless you can prove this station does not exist it would be unfair to delete the article." Not true. It it doesn't meet WP:N, the article should be deleted. Joe Chill (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I said before go to Birmingham, it is there and has been for over 10 years! How much more notable can you get? --Cexycy (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't show notability per WP:N! Joe Chill (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why don't you state which PART of WP:N you are talking about instead of just quoting article titles! All you ever seem to do is that, whereas I have actually quoted sections in the past haven't I? Maybe not so much here but in one or two of other arguments you have raised with me. --Cexycy (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Significant coverage in reliable sources! When you quoted WP:MUSIC, you didn't use its correct meaning. I didn't think someone would have so much trouble understanding WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since you have such a problem reading straightforward guidelines, here is a quote: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." You'll probably twist that around also. Joe Chill (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've now added two references to the article, which are not local (even though there is nothing wrong with local sources anyway). They are unbiased to myself, Wikipedia or Sting FM themselves. This should prove that the article is notable and should be kept. Same goes for Hot 92 now. --Cexycy (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I do see sufficient sources to verify the existence of this station. Is there any notability guide for pirate stations? I know in the U.S., any FCC licensed station seems to be deemed notable. In britian, though, i understand there are many pirate stations of varying importance.--Milowent (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes there are many pirate stations, however this has more to do with the fact our government has neither the enforcement capability, nor the penalties to deal with such activity, rather than any question of "importance" (unless you count re-broadcasting a rumour as important). Rapido (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is evidence it exits and the time they have been on air makes them notable. It's lightweight and would benefit from more content but isn't just a puff piece - so it merits entry. 80.177.5.122 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I've looked at all the sources, including those added by Cexycy, and none of them contain really significant coverage about the station itself. They're mostly about the rape incident, with the station mentioned almost in passing as one of the venues (and not even the first) on which it was spread. I therefore don't think they confer notability. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Olaf Davis, we require non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Extra emphasis on the non-trivial part in this case. JBsupreme (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It bears mentioning that a sister AfD to this one resulted in a keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot 92 (pirate radio station).--Milowent (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not really a "sister AFD", I just happened to nominate this one three days apart from the other one. Just because the other one resulted in a keep has no bearing on this AFD. Rapido (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The outcomes of similar AfDs should always have bearing. By "sister AfD" i was referring to the fact that both were involved in that one rumour event.--Milowent (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Even if we accept the notion that outcomes of similar AfDs should have bearing it needs to be established that they are similar. Reading the two they do not seem very similar to me: the evidence of notability in that case was vastly better than in this one. Every case needs to be considered on its own merits. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With the exception of the post where Cexycy says "I've now added two references to the article..." all of the arguments for "keep" are based on reasons which have nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies, such as "it really does exist", and so have no relevance. As for the references, I have read them all, including the two that Cexycy added. One of the references given (this one) does not even mention Sting FM. The only relevance of this source is that it gives one quote from a person who it states is a DJ on Sting FM: giving a quote does not constitute substantial coverage even of the person who made it, let alone substantial coverage of the radio station. Other sources give a little more mention, but only to report that Sting FM reported a particular news event: this is minimal coverage of Sting FM. There is no conceivable way that this can be considered as adding up to notability by Wikipedia standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 8 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 I'm not aware of any policy or guidelines that says notability for Jewish academinics is different to the general standard but there is undoubtedly some coverage out there. The question really is whether there is enough and I see two obituaries in local papers and an op-ed. Much of the keep arguing is not based on policy grounded reasons so the overal outcome should be delete. However, given the possibility of systemic bias I'm going to exercise discretion and incubate this in the hope that a bit more work with make the passing of the N hurdle a little more obvious Its now at Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Yosef_Babad_(Hebrew_Theological_College) Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yosef Babad (HTC)[edit]

Yosef Babad (HTC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No assertion of notability Kittybrewster ☎ 11:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This man was dean of students at a college for over 30 years. He guided the institution during that time, and had hundreds if not thousands of students. Isn't that notable in itself? Isn't it important for his students to understand his backround so that they can follow in his footsteps?? What is your definition of notable? wizir01 ☎ 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Rabbi Chaim Twerski, Dr. Babad wrote plenty of articles, and a book as well. Please give us time to collect this information and then you will see for yourself his noteworthiness. wizir01 ☎ 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Passes none of the criteria for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Userfy or Incubate. An editor has asked for more time. Being dean of students at any university is insufficient to have a Wikipedia article, but perhaps Dr Babad has other claims of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 09:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per article creator. Dean of college is notable. We have to work on the sources, few of which can be found by Google searches. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What if I told you deans aren't automatically notable? Abductive (reasoning) 07:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• i would then probably respond that you're right, but a dean of thousands of students is automatically notable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't a dean of thousands of students, and where is any of this written in policy? Abductive (reasoning) 18:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't because he's dead. But before he died, thousands of students were under his deanship (albeit not at the same time) because he was a Dean of Students for 40 years. Although this is not a per se claim to notability, being in the position that he was made him an important and notable part of the Chicago Jewish community (one of the largest Jewish communities in the world) This is supported by this source. I have access to the entire article and have included some content to article that can not be viewed by the free version. All this is notwithstanding his other claims to notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 18:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Dean of Studies of a major university is inherently notable under academics. JAAG^Talk 18:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, WP:PROF #6 is only for heads of universities; Dean of Studies is a lower-level position. It seems reasonably likely that a dean of studies would be notable, but we'll have to find some other way of demonstrating this than ex officio. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added a few additional references to the article. Maybe, this will help. JAAG^Talk 17:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or incubate. I haven't been able to find anything significant about this man, as opposed to his ancestor. Dean of students is not the same as dean of an institution; it's often a nonacademic functionary position. The article states that he was "graduate school dean," but doesn't explain the context.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I tried and failed to find sources on him — the article mentions two Chicago-area newspaper obituaries but I couldn't find them (so couldn't tell if they were the kind of obituary the family pays to publish or the kind that major newspapers write about famous people). The institution for which he was dean of students is tiny (around 300 students combined from high school and college levels) so his position there may be more analogous to a high school assistant principal than to a major academic position of the type that would meet WP:PROF #6. Regardless of whether he passes WP:PROF, he seems to fail WP:V. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Chicago Sun-Times obituary. It was written by a columnist for the paper, not family-paid. I have access to the entire article and can email it to you if you wish.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given that he was a professor a major theological school, he may have been a notable scholar; & I make that presumption on the lack of other evidence. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's not a major theological school -- it's tiny, with almost half the students at high-school level. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and the other half is not. Most theological schools are small in size. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And consequently less notability to rub off on the subject. Abductive (reasoning) 05:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

half the students at high-school level. Not true. It's a college, not a highschool.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, he's a functionary with no particular claim of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 18:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's a scholar, author, professor, rabbi, communal leader, activist, and functionary. The particular claims to notability are coverage in reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article are an obituary, a extremely short mention in a book, and an editorial. Now, DGG might say that an obit in the NYT is prima facie evidence of notability, but I ask, "why wasn't his death noticed in a non-Chicago newspaper?" Abductive (reasoning) 18:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being profiled in an op-ed versus a regular article is irrelevant for notability purposes. So his death was noticed in at least two large newspapers, one in Chicago and one in Israel. These two by their very selves sufficient to satisfy the notability requirements. This bio has to be viewed in its correct context. Those notable within the Orthodox Jewish community receive most of their coverage in Orthodox Jewish publications, most of which are unavailable on-line. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I disagree that he was profiled in the editorial, I disagree that his death was noticed in two large newspapers, I disagree that that would satisfy the notability requirement, I disagree that the Orthodox Jewish community are mostly offline, and I disagree that we have to accept articles on people who do not achieve notability because they are largely offline. Abductive (reasoning) 19:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine, but I'm not really sure who exactly you're disagreeing with when you say that you "disagree that we have to accept articles on people who do not achieve notability because they are largely offline." Nobody at this afd claimed to the contrary. You may have misunderstood my previous statement or you may be unfamiliar with WP-policy that allows for off-line sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we have no evidence of offline sources. Abductive (reasoning) 19:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-line sources are inherently unsupported by evidence. That's where WP:AGF comes in.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My viewpoint is that this article was created as a memorial, and the man didn't do anything encyclopedic.He did his duty at his institution, and that's it. Most people have jobs, and in the US and Britain at least, get some mention in newspapers if they live long enough. Pick a first name and last name at random, and I'll bet you hit on a percentage that would bring the number of Wikipedia articles to around 100,000,000. For example, I just made up the string "Ralph Stockton", which has no hits on Wikipedia. But, check out Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Abductive (reasoning) 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably imagining him as the Dean of Students of the college that you attended, who was unnotable person. Just like the dean of students at my college. However, as indicated by the coverage in sources, he was more then that. He was a notable person in the Jewish community, for a variety of reasons, one of which was his longetivity at an important religious institution. His position as dean of students was not like a regular dean of students, who are just doing their 9-5 job, but do not create a real connection to any society. A position like Dean of Students in the Orthodox Jewish community means that this person is an important leader of the Orthodox Jewish community. You obviously don't have to accept my anthropological discourse. I'm only to trying to explain how this person came to be seen as notable despite spending most of his career at a position that usually does not establish notability.

As for your point regarding random person's name, you're incorrect. The name that you chose as an example is a common generic name whose ghits include hundreds of different people. A better example may be a name such as Ralph Frockton, who gets far less ghits. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Yosef Babad is very uncommon Jewish name. Indeed, all the ghtis either refer to him or ancestor. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point there was that a Ralph Stockton has an obituary in a major daily. Abductive (reasoning) 20:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim of Deans of Students in the Orthodox Jewish community being somehow more notable is special pleading. What about a Black Dean of Students at a HBCU? Sure, that means something in the local community, but if all he or she did was be a dean of students, what is the encyclopedic value? Abductive (reasoning) 20:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a special pleading. He's notable because he has received substantial coverage. My "claims" are only to facilitate your understanding on how its possible that he was considered notable despite having - as seen from the normal Western cultural prism - a position that is not usually associated with notability. As to your comparison to a Black Dean of Students at a HBCU, you can't really compare a community based on race to a community based on religion. There's a far greater sense of community in the latter then the former. That aside, if there's a Black Dean of Students that is notable, all the power to his Wikipedia article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His coverage is not substantial. Abductive (reasoning) 20:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Actually I just found another source, [12] an article in the Chicago Tribune. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough here to pass WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There seem to be several sources that point out his notability in the community of American Orthodox Jewry. Just because the community of interest isn't all that wide, doesn't mean we should automatically exclude it. Ask yourself if the Project is weaker or richer because of this addition. I say it is richer, and the article should be given some breathing room, allowing the editors time to find more sources. Stellarkid (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jaag and others, who voted to keep.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep wizir01 I added some more information about his scholarly work. I haven't yet had a chance to go to the library and get the names and dates. I really don't understand why this article was marked for deletion so quickly after I created it; it takes time to gather the information about noteworthy figures. I consider this a collaborative endeavor. I am rather new to Wikipedia, and it seems to be a very unfriendly place if you don't have all your facts online immediately. What is motivating you to delete stuff like this so quickly? —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

wizir01 Concerning the school: It is the school that sponsored major rabbinical figures like Joseph Soloveitchik and Dovid Lifshitz to come to America. Some of the greatest leaders in the Jewish world went to the school; see the article on Hebrew Theological College for more info. It may be relatively small, but its impact is high in the Orthodox Jewish world. (talk) 8 January 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment, I'm having no difficulty finding sources on roughly similar cases, such as Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. This is evidence that Orthodox Jewish figures are indexed by Google, and that Yosef Babad is not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 05:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, he's WP:NOTABLE enough. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding about what constitutes notability for a Judaic scholar. user Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) had once noted [13] in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:25, 8 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 speedy deleted as blatant vandalism, blatant hoax and for sockpuppetry

The Merfish[edit]

The Merfish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

((Hoax)) tag added to article nearly a week ago with no attempt made to delete article or refute hoax claim. Quick search only turns up hits related to "Merfish" as a surname. Two of the three sources given do not directly mention the topic. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The concept is real, but not the name. No article is possible until a name is given, in a WP:Reliable source of course.Northwestgnome (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteRedirect to Mermaid I was the editor who tagged the article last week. Agree with all the comments above. It just didn't feel right, but I thought I'd give the originator a chance to prove that it was called a Merfish. The Harold Holt link rang the most alarm bells for me, hence I removed that section a couple of days ago. The-Pope (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if the concept is real and notable, then it presumably has a conventional name. If not "merfish", what is it? The most pressing question here is: is this is a notable concept? The name isn't so important, because we can simply rename the page. Everyking (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We think the concept is real, but we don't know if it is notable. Searching for a name we don't know is difficult. There probably should be a mention of it at Mermaid, so unless someone can provide evidence of independent notabilty, I've changed my opinion to redirect to there.The-Pope (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Definitely. The three sources are: 1.a surrealist painting which takes advantage of the absurdity and non-existence of not only the creature, but the concept itself. 2. An album cover that faintly resembles a "merfish", and 3. a book that never even uses the phrase. Clearly, this is a hoax. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete-This page should not be deleted. The concept is not under question and clearly supported as it is the subject of various pieces of artwork. It is clearly a defined mythological creature. The entry clearly requires additional support for the verification of the name and claims made. In support of the author’s classification of the creature as a merfish, we can reference “Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology & Legend” by Funk & Wagnall. It is also reference on a Wellesley College page on Mythology: http://www.wellesley.edu/Psychology/Cheek/Narrative/myth.html. --Gregory83267 (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, where did the painting of the "howling merfish" come from? Everyking (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to mermaid. The page referenced above mentions the word "merfish" as another word for "mermaid", not the supposed mythological creature this article describes.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 18:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Mermaid as a new section, perhaps between History & Claimed sightings. If there is an issue with the title "The Merfish" for the new section how about "Inverse Mermaid" or another suitable title. --blue520 13:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to mermaid. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deleting as blatant hoax, vandalism, WP:BOLD and WP:SNOW. Blocking both users as well. The links only point to a couple of general pages on surrealist art. "Merfish" by itself might be a plausible redirect; "The Merfish" is not. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:13, 7 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyAnimeList[edit]

MyAnimeList (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Recreation of a previously deleted article. The subject has not received significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What third party coverage it has received is trivial and based on a press release when the website was purchased by another company. A matter that has no changed since the last AfD. Continues to fail WP:WEB and WP:N The article has had some serious WP:COI as it was created, recreated, and then re-recreated by someone affiliated with the website, Kei-clone. —Farix (t | c) 03:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 03:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the article has only been deleted and recreated once, not twice. Anyway, the Google Scholar link at the top of this AfD returns one hit [14], which has significant coverage of MyAnimeList. However, since the article in question looks like it is hosted at the author's personal website, it isn't clear to me if it is actually a reliable source (I would have thought everything in Google Scholar was a reliable source, but I don't really know). Some searching indicates that it was presented at a conference at a university in Macedonia [15], but I don't know whether or not that makes it a reliable source. Also, the article cites Wikipedia as a major source for its information for some parts of the article, which could be a problem even if it is a reliable source, though it looked to me that the information it was taking from Wikipedia wasn't for the part of the article on MyAnimeList. Calathan (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, everything on Google Scholar is not a reliable source, attestable by the fact that my personal writings from my personal website also appear there :-P Like most of Google's stuff, it doesn't really give info on how it decides what to index there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my impression was that this article wasn't a reliable source, since I can't find any explanation of why this person would be considered an expert on otaku culture (or any subject for that matter), other than that he was invited to speak at this conference. I'm going to say delete, as I don't think there is significant, reliable coverage of MyAnimeList. Calathan (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete despite its low cost purchase, the site continues to fail WP:WEB and WP:N. The only "coverage" is from its own press release and self-made publicity. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article would be considered significant coverage, and there's also the academic paper (already pointed out above). The site was also listed as Best of the Web in 2008. The site clearly meets WP:WEB. as a Side note, it has an Alexa rating of 5709, which is pretty significant for the type of site it is. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The MediaPost.com article is an elaboration of a press release, but one article isn't significant coverage. The "academic paper" appears have been someone's term paper as there is no evidence of being published in an academic journal, and is therefore not reliable. The SeekJapan's "Best of the Web" doesn't appear to be a well-known award and doesn't fullfill WP:WEB #2 (which is the only thing left). And finally, Alexa rankings have never taken as an indicator of notability. Popularity is not the same as notability. —Farix (t | c) 20:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The MediaPost article is not just a press release; there are two of those linked from the article, and this is much more in-depth, including discussion with the CEO of the company which purchased the site. The paper was presented at an international symposium and is very unlikely be simply a term paper. Term papers are not generally (if ever) presented at international academic symposia. As for whether the proceedings of the symposium were collected into a published volume, I can't say, but papers presented at a symposium have to be submitted and approved ahead of time (I've helped run an international academic symposium for the last 20 years), so not just anyone can pop up and present at one. They have to be vetted ahead of time, so it would qualify as a reliable source regardless of whether it was subsequently published in a proceedings volume or another academic journal. The award and the Alexa ranking were just mentioned as asides (even though an Alexa ranking that high is likely going to indicate notability to some extent as sites don't become that popular without some notice by the press). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nihonjoe's findings, I found too that the website does have over 200,000 users (According to the Website Administrator) also per this link:[16] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The number of users doesn't make a website notable. It is not included from WP:WEB as a criteria. —Farix (t | c) 20:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 18:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not the absolute least notable website ever to show up at AFD, but I'm not convinced it passes WP:WEB, and the recurrent COI/SPAM issues don't exactly help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its Alexa rankings does hint at its notability. It has over 1.3 million hits when I search for its name on Google. That many people talking about it, and Alexa proving that massive number of people regularly go to it, make the website quite notable. Over 200,000 people have used their forum! I don't care what the constantly changing suggested guidelines say, since they were passed by a very small number of people, without the vast majority of Wikipedia editors ever noticing. Wikipedia is not a set of rules, you suppose to use common sense, that a founding principle. WP:IAR A website should be considered notable if a hell of a lot of people use it. Dream Focus 07:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, if you search for "myanimelist -site:myanimelist.net" (in other words, where "myanimelist" is mentioned on other websites, not on myanimelist.net itself) on Google, the hits drop by nearly 70%. "200,000" is the number of signed people once claimed by that website itself, unverified by external sources, and even that website no longer lists stats. Like Farix said, the number of users doesn't make a website notable, even if it is "a hell of a lot." 1-54-24 (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, google hits and forum users do not count, and IAR is not some sort of magical wildcard. Try using your own common sense instead of suggesting reasons to keep that you know hold no weight to them in AFD. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some say the number of sales a bestselling book doesn't make it notable, and it should be deleted, but usually COMMON SENSE rules out over the suggested guidelines. See [17] for a good example of that. Some insist that even if a manga series has 15 million copies in print [18]] it isn't notable if you get no reviews and should be deleted, while others of course have sense to disagree. Websites are notable by the number of people that use them, not just because a couple of reviewers somewhere decided to mention them for whatever reason. The opinions of the millions who read something, is far more important than the opinions of a small number of people that review them. This bit of what I would consider common sense, does have weight in many AFDs, far more than the suggested guidelines for notability(suggested, because they are not binding, only suggestions on how to do things). Dream Focus 06:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's remember that we're not talking about the "opinions of the millions" in this case, but a claimed but unverified "200,000." 1-54-24 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reiterating a point from the previous AfD that seems to have been forgotten here (can't blame anyone really, previous AfD was full of tl;dr), but please be careful not to reduce the significance of the Best of the Web award, as it is not only an award by a 20 year old magazine, but it also contains an accompanying article that independently provides non-trivial coverage of MyAnimeList as one of its subjects. So even if a 20 year old magazine published both on and offline doesn't fulfill WP:WEB #2, it clearly fits WP:WEB #1. So to recap, for WP:WEB you have:

• Coverage from a reliable magazine with editorial review
• Media coverage that is not a mere press release
• A presenation covering this subject that was presented at an International Conference hosted by New York University at Skopje, an event I'd find hard to believe would present papers not vetted by a scholarly community.

Will withhold my vote due to COI so it won't count anyway, but please take the above into consideration Kei-clone (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This " Best of the Web" listing keeps getting described here as an "award," except the article never calls it an award, even for the other websites listed (unless "takes the cake for nerdiest thing ever conceived" counts). Magazines do regular "Best such-and-such Websites" listings, but that doesn't make them awards. A paragraph, albeit entertainingly written, seems to fall under "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site" that is one of WP:WEB #1's exceptions. 1-54-24 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder I couldn't find much information about New York University Skopje, the supposed site of the scholarly presentation. The website says it was only registered as a university in Macdeonia in 2005. Despite the name, it has nothing to do with New York University in New York. Bizarrely, there is a University of New York in Skopje that says it opened in 2005 in the same city. It's not related to the University of New York in New York either. Even more bizarrely, both New York University Skopje and University of New York in Skopje have the same phone number, (+38) 9220 34600.

University of New York in Skopje claims to offer an accredited degree with State University of New York (but not the University of New York). But the State University of New York's website doesn't mention "University of New York in Skopje" or "New York University Skopje." What is going on? 1-54-24 (talk) 07:27, 8 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 speedy keep. There is no deletion nomination, and the only deletion argument is based on IAR and mistakenly believing this person to be alive. Anyone actually wishing to nominate this article for deletion may do so without prejudice. Fences&Windows 23:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Vincenza[edit]

Sister Vincenza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Keep, Per a discussion found here [[19]] Unfortunately there are those here that do not think this lady should have her own page. As the creator I believe she is mentioned in enough third party sources and is central enough in the murder conspiracy theories to warrant her own article. in this case I liken her to Monica Lewinsky. Monica's only real notability is sucking clinton's cock. Granted this is much more graphic then what Sister Vincenza did just delivering coffee, however the excuse was it was unseemly for a woman to be in the papal apartments early in the morning as the reason for giving a different story. Either way both have resulted in media coverage trough books, newspapers and spoken word. As such I believe she does pass notability requirements, I understand others have felt differently so I am open to a community deletion discussion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The article is well referenced – witten in a NPOV style and informative. Conspiacy??? That I believe, is left to an individual’s own mind-set. As to the article itself, meets all the criteria for inclusion. JAAG^Talk 18:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question – I am confused why you brought this article to AFD? You are the creator of the piece, by the way nice job – you go through the nomination process to have the article AFD – than you write a strong Keep opinion. Am I missing something. JAAG^Talk 19:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To explain, article was discussed at the BLPN here and there was some discussion as regards notability and the creator of the article quite decently in the circumstance nominated the article himself, he has also added some citations and comments to the article to improve it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frequently I nominate articles for deletion, I dislike seing a author who caares for his work perform useless work if in the end it is deleted anyways.. I figured I'd save all of us time, myself included by taking it a discussion for deletion. It appeared ot be headed that way so to avoid a person having to prod it, me remove it. Someone nominate it for AFd and I have to respond anyways....Figured it save time....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I’m sorry if I am overlooking the obvious here, but I see Hell in a Bucket as the original author of the piece, at least looking at the history of the article. I see Hell in a Bucket nominating the piece for deletion here at AFD. Then I see Hell in a Bucket writing a strong Keep opinion. Please excuse the pun, but what the hell is going on. Thanks JAAG^Talk 22:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jag, your repeating yourself, once is plenty, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My apologies, but I didn’t realize AFD was an edit review procedure. I had assumed, reading the policy and guidelines, that the only reason we brought an article here was with a firm belief that an article should be deleted. If I am mistaken in my interpretation, of the current policies and guidelines, my apologies. JAAG^Talk 22:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes thank you, I am sure you will enjoy your editing here, bye for now. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Where's the nomination (i.e. the rationale for its deletion) per WP:AFD? patsw (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The original comments at the BLPN discussion were.. not notable, limited notability reflected in only one event. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:Ignore all rules. It's just too weird to have an article that starts out by calling a living person a "central figure in conspiracy theories." She could be covered in an article on the theories. Borock (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That arguement could've held weight....if she was still alive. She died in 1984, Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I still think the article is kind of lame. Why not just have one on the theories? Borock (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is one on the Theories. However if you do a search [[20]] and [[21]]. This one person is actually one of the main reasons there is theories to begin with. Consider that Monica Lewinski (other then downing a presidential load, what has she done?) and Lewinsky scandal is notable because of the widespread coverage she recieved after the President lied....This is the same thing, if all she did was find the pope dead, I agree non notable. however this wasn't the case. the Vatican lied about her involvement. this has resulted in 30 yeArs of coverage and speculation, Due to one person. This is why Sister Vincenza and the existing conspiracy should exist in tandem. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then one article should do it. If all that's known about her is conspiracy theories then she probably shouldn't have an article since readers would be expecting solid information on her as a person. Much more is known about Ms Lewinsky.Borock (talk) 22:52, 2 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. Lack of general notability and inclusion guidance at WP:CORP NJA (t/c) 08:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Wireless[edit]

Allied Wireless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article about a proposed future telecommunications company with no demonstration of notability — prod removed by author. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but this article is. Nyttend (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16 December 2009

• Keep. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/10/AR2009061002633.html This is a company which is paying $200 million for a package of assets that the sellers is required to divest. There is already enough evoidence to establish the company as notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A7 corporate article with no third party sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19 December 2009

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article claims the company is a subsidiary of Atlantic Tele-Network which has a similar article that already mentions this project. If the larger company is on NASDAQ it may be notable and this article can be merged into that one. Sussexonian (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, working off of Eastmain's note. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:42, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as this article makes no claim to notability in accordance with WP:CORP, nor does it cite any sources in support of such a claim. Wikipedia is not a barebones business directory, and there is no significant coverage for this company that would suggest an encyclopedic article can be written about it at this time. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, without encyclopedic value. $200,000,000 isn't very much money, and this is a shell corporation designed to accomplish a specific task. Abductive (reasoning) 22:35, 7 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) 06:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil recipients of the Padma Bhushan[edit]

List of Tamil recipients of the Padma Bhushan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The Padma Bhushan article contains a comprehensive list of all the Padma Bhushan awardees. The information in this article is hence redundant. Jovianeye (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's rationale. same as the padmashri list. The main awards articles have state information in a sortable format. This article is redundant--Sodabottle (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if the recipient's state is Tamil Nadu the info is already on the main page and if the recipient is otherwise a member of the ethnic group then his/her article suffices for the info and no seperate list on this limited criterion is necessary. Hekerui (talk) 01:05, 2 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 no consensus. NJA (t/c) 08:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Stills[edit]

Jen Stills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I don't think this studio(?) musician passes WP:MUSIC. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 06:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - This one's tough, especially under WP:MUSICBIO where maybe her work as a songwriter passes criterion #10 (her appearances on notable soundtracks). Elsewhere in the music notability guidelines she has more support at WP:COMPOSER, particularly criterion #1 as more notable artists have used some of her works. In general, third party sources describing some of her songs can be found but they're quite rare. Her situation might improve if her supposed 2009 album appears and gains notice. This article is premature at worst, and maybe notability will become apparent in the future. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Trouble is, I can't verify these claims. Abductive (reasoning) 14:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Apparently passes MUSICBIO 10 for TV work, other appearances/work/credit make the name a plausible search term. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Delete. I really wanted vote keep here, but I just can't do that when I get zero google news archive hits. I don't think WP:MUSICBIO#10 applies here, as she didn't do a TV or movie theme nor perform on a show. She does appear to have a song a movie soundtrack, but that sound track doesn't appear to be a "a notable compilation album" as we don't have an article for it. MUSICBIO#10 also states that "(But if this [criterion] is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)" Yilloslime ^T_C 01:42, 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) 04:44, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As an individual artist, she hasn't really hasn't reached notability. If you insist on keeping the title as a possible search term, then redirect it to the article about the soundtrack. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:04, 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) 08:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ProperLyrics[edit]

ProperLyrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

According to the article this is one of the most highly rated artists on the british rap scene but I'm finding no decent sources on google, google books or google scholor so I'm unable to avoid the conclusion that this person is non-notable and doesn't meet our inclusion criteria, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ive reached same conclusions as SPartaz, i have tried to find information on him other than self published stuff like his myspace page and his vids on youtube- no luck. I thought i'd found something when i came across one of his vids on an NME site, but the page contained the disclaimer "DISCLAIMER: The video content provided on this page is generated by YouTube and consequently features user-generated content." --Brunk500 (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:51, 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) 04:46, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After searching under both his stage and real names, I couldn't find any reliable coverage either. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons stated above. It certainly seems like you should be able to find something else, but you really can't.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 22:47, 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 delete. General essay-like article, that even if improved would still be an article where the information could be condensed with the summarised version added to already existent and relevant articles on Wikipedia. NJA (t/c) 08:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado in-state tuition[edit]

Colorado in-state tuition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unencyclopedic POV essay. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article deals with Colorado legislation and its implications, as well as at least one possible amendment. POV concerns can be addressed by editing the article. The topic is an encyclopedic one. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:48, 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) 04:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although an important issue, this is not really the proper form for an encyclopedia article. The information chould be included in an article on the Colorado educational system or on illegal immigrants in Colorado or something. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An important discussion on the legislation in Colorado. Were there an appropriate article, I would vote to merge it, but I do not see any appropriate article for this information. RayJazz21 (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- This is an essay, not an encyclopedic article. Part of the info could be included in an Education in Colorado article.--24.201.13.148 (talk) 22:02, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an essay, Wikipedia is not your own personal publishing source. 2 says you, says two 19:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pending a complete rewrite. The tone of the "article" is not appropriate, but the subject remains notable. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 08:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Rather than fixing this essay, the topic should be covered in a more general article about Colorado or U.S. college education, since the subject of in-state tuition is not well-covered in Wikipedia. --Colfer2 (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't deny that there is a problem with the way the legislation is being used. Nor is the issue unique to Colorado. I just don't believe that the Wikipedia is the proper place to be raising it as an issue. Wikipedia is not a bandstand or soapbox. Even if the , lack of citations, and poor grammar problems were solved, I don't believe that the issue is notable. Notability under the guidelines has not been established, but even if coverage in reliable secondary sources were to be found, a discussion would seem to be better applied in the Impact section of a Toll v. Moreno, 441 U.S. 458 (1979), article, or as part of an In-state tuition in the United States article spun off from Education in the United States. --Bejnar (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:COATRACK. Concerned people should edit the Education in Colorado instead. More people will read that one anyway. Abductive (reasoning) 22:38, 7 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) 08:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Rogerson[edit]

Shaun Rogerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

A contestant on a UK talent show who has not yet gained independent notability - fails to meet WP:MUSIC because he was not placed in a talent contest (only reached the final 24), has not had a hit album, or two or more releases on a major label (one non-hit release on a minor label) and fails to meet WP:GNG because all coverage is both minor (local news coverage) and related to the X Factor (WP:1E). According to Wikipedia policy the article should therefore be deleted. I42 (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable at all. Although "It has been reported in Manchester Evening News that Shaun touched the hearts of fan of the X Factor with his performance" made me chuckle -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 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) 05:23, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 11:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons given in the nomination. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:15, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FarPoint Spread[edit]

FarPoint Spread (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

non notable software, speedy removed by SPA who has admitted COI with the software author in an edit summary WuhWuzDat 19:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to remove any non-encyclopedic content and to change it to a neutral point of view. (As I mentioned elsewhere, I used Microsoft Excel and Crystal Reports as my guides.) I didn't edit for notability, as I didn't find this page until just now, but I had already realized that the article was short of non-related and non-sales type references, and intend to begin researching such references right now. I also realized that after I turned all the comma-delimited lists of features into bulleted lists of features, the article looks kind of list-heavy. I will also try to remedy that when I learn more about the software. Thank you for your work on behalf of the project. I gain more respect for it the more I read, and will try my best to follow the guidelines. Kimnathans (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added some external references to the article. Kimnathans (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else that could be done to improve this article? Kimnathans (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve: The article relies somewhat too heavily on primary source press releases, but it does reference a number of reviews in reliable third party publications; so I think the notability of the product is sufficiently documented. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some book citations to the article. Would it be best to delete some of the primary source press releases? Thanks! Kimnathans (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete average product that does average things. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Comment The guidelines for inclusion don't include the quality of the product; only the nature of the coverage it has generated. This product has generated notice in WP:RS and therefore has met the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:04, 20 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) 05:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nowhere near enough coverage Shadowjams (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources seem to demonstrate notability; to say that there's "nowhere near enough coverage" seems a bit subjective. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 09:13, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources offered that may be independent enough do not have a broad enough readership to really confer notability. Even if coverage in a "VSj" website or "Software Development Times" is in fact independent, those sites are addressed exclusively to software development communities and as such no more able to confer notability than your hometown newspaper. The remaining "references" are to routine corporate announcements. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see anything in WP:N that indicates that the independent sources need to have broad readership. Software topics are going to be covered by software journals that have readership limited to software developers, in the same way that physics topics will be covered in physics journals that have limited readership (limited to physicists). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physics topics, though, don't raise the issues of spam, commercial conflict of interest, and product placement that software articles do. This is why more should be required. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 2 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) 06:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waismann Method[edit]

Waismann Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No reputable sources are given in the article, and Google Scholar does not show any publications describing this method. We should not have articles about medical treatments that lack scholarly sources. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and also for strong promotional tone: article appears to be a WP:COATRACK for a treatment center. MuffledThud (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promotional, as well as possible copy-and-paste from various parts of http://www.opiates.com. --Hnsampat (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and promotional concerns; almost reads like a "how-to" guide. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:47, 4 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.