< 17 September	19 September >

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 17:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MurmurHash[edit]

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

Article is unsupported by any reliable sources. The article topic is not notable enough for reliable sources right now. It does not seem that this topic should be in the wikipedia at present- multiplicative hash functions are two a penny.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probable delete - I originally PRODded the article, but it was removed with the comment "remove prod - not a clear cut case", presumably because of the use in projects like Memcached. However, I'm not sure that this notability is inherited, so instead we need reliable sources. As the nom says, there are currently no reliable independent sources that discuss this subject (if some can be found, it's likely that I will change my !vote). Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - Anyone who looks through the 16,000 hits on Google [1] and claims there are just no reliable sources is kidding themselves, and us. The project's own homepage on GooglePages [2] is a reliable source for the existence of the algorithm and for the verifiable specifics of it. The links to other notable projects that have chosen to include the algorithm, including memcached, maatkit and hadoop [3], are reliable sources that show that the algorithm is itself notable. Despite being relatively recent and lacking a strong connection to academia, it is already being referenced in academic papers [4]. Why is it being adapted by these projects? Because, according to their benchmarks, it gives good results while being much faster [5]. In short, this is a significant new algorithm that has broad appeal in the open-source coding community. There is absolutely no question that MurmurHash is notable; the only question is why Filth has tried twice to delete any mention of it from Wikipedia. 208.80.104.2 (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 16,000 hits are, to my knowledge, reliable sources and the [6] is just a self published website. Anybody could write anything in there; it doesn't even prove that murmurhash exists or that it is any good.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fascinated by your explanation for how 16,000 web pages mention an algorithm that "doesn't exist". It would also be great if you could explain how you can personally dismiss them all despite the fact that academic papers and open-source project sites are accepted as reliable sources in the other articles on hashing algorithms. It would be just as interesting to find out why anyone would even imagine that MurmurHash doesn't exist when in fact they can see it for themselves right here on Wikipedia. It's an algorithm, not a mountain range: proof of existence is a rather different question. Alternately, perhaps could consider that you are overstating your case to the point of self-parody and should instead focus on a credible argument for exclusion. 208.80.104.2 (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of level I would want for this would be a mention in communications of the ACM or something similar.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean like Pearson hashing, an obsolete 8-bit algorithm that the ACM covered 20 years ago? Thank you for sharing your personal standard, but I fail to see why anyone else should accept it. 208.80.104.2 (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is here: WP:RS. Please limit your discussion to how the article does or does not meet this standard, and completely cut out the personal attacks, it reflects badly on both you and the article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep The MurmurHash algorithm may be notable, just stroll through the web pages. It is used by different notable projects, mentioned by the NIST and so on. The problem is the article, which does not talk about, how the algorithm works what makes it different from others and so on. We only find some prose about the version history spiced with a little bit of advertising. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for this hash algorithm. There's plenty of discussion forums and blog posts to be had but they aren't reliable sources. Notability would be established with articles about in technology magazines such as Dr. Dobb's or Linux Journal. I found no evidence of such writeups but I can be persuaded to change my mind if others can come up with such sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the author of MurmurHash (Austin Appleby). MurmurHash is "brand new" as far as hash functions go - people have been coming up with them for decades - and has seen only a few references in academic material so far. That said, it is in fact a significant improvement over previous algorithms and has been embraced by a number of open- and closed-source projects - both the ones mentioned in the article, and in internal projects at Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo, and no doubt others. A number of these projects discovered MurmurHash through browsing Wikipedia.

I did not create the Wikipedia article and I've avoided making any significant edits to it due to being unsure whether that was acceptable behavior here, but if the primary complaints here are that the article is insufficiently meaty then I'd be more than happy to elaborate on why MurmurHash happens to be considerably faster and more effective than previous hashes - the topic would touch on aspects of modern processor pipelines as well as statistical tests derived from cryptanalysis.

Given another year or so I'd expect that enough people might encounter MurmurHash to earn it an article in Dr. Dobbs or Linux Journal or whichever sources are considered sufficiently reliable. In the meantime the algorithm exists in a state much like a mathematical proof - it exists, it has been published, and its properties are easily and objectively verifiable. I am a professional and experienced software developer and not a dedicated researcher, and since MurmurHash was a product of necessity and not formal research it was not presented first via a technical journal nor submitted to peer review before publication. I published it using the most expedient means necessary and assumed that users would eventually either refute or confirm my claims - most all have been confirmed, with a few caveats regarding performance on older chip architectures.

If the above qualities are insufficient to qualify MurmurHash for a Wikipedia article, then I will be rather disappointed by its deletion - the article has proven to be a useful point of reference for software engineers and researchers, and removing it would seem to me to be a step backwards. Aappleby (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it fails WP:NOTABILITY, and the purpose of the wikipedia is to contain WP:verifiable knowledge ("verifiability over truth"). Right now, it's not verifiable. If it became verifiable then it very probably would become notable and you could get the deletion overturned.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This topic fails WP:N. Searches in Google News Archive and Google Books come up with nothing, while a Google Scholar search returns unrelated results. Cunard (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Rother[edit]

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

Article about a psychic medium... All books appear to be self-published, no independent, reliable sources giving more than trivial coverage to demonstrate enough notability for his own article. I'm not sure enough notability can be shown for even a mention in some other article either. DreamGuy (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of NOTE. Verbal chat 23:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I predict this article will be deleted because of lack of notability. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources on Google News Archive were sources about a horse expert. The only sources about him, such as [this community do not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Lourie Pieterse 15:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Despite the numbers, the delete arguments are well grounded in that the sources given do not cover the subject in sufficient depth to show notability. Kevin (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen McNamara[edit]

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

Kristen was a finalist on Nashville Star in 2006 (finishing 6th) and then a semi-finalist on American Idol in season 8. The main problem I have is that the sourcing is terrible. It's basically fansites and the USA site for Nashville Star and nothing else. We have a general guideline about semi-finalists on Idol not having articles simply because generally they aren't notable. They don't have careers much beyond Idol. The argument to keep her article seems to be that she was on Nashville Star. But in the end, that's essentially a cable reality show. It would be different if there were wonderful sources all over the place and there was in any indication that she was ever going to be notable but there simply isn't. It should be redirected to the AI8 article. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 23:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For me the sources aren't terrible, her official page is reliable enough, she can't lie about her own life and the other sources, like the Nashville Star one are reliable too. Facha93 (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to have OUTSIDE sources, especially for BLP articles such as Kristen's. And I'm not making this up. :) See here, here and other places. Official websites are often promotional in nature. Fansites generally do not post anything negative to the artist involved and they often have 0 fact checking. To show notability, we have to basically have 3rd party sources say "hey this person is notable". We simply don't have that here. And that's not even getting into the point I made about AI semi-finalists generally doing nothing beyond the show. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best I'm finding are these: [7], [8], [9]. The first might be a good second source, but I'd want to see a biographical article in an independent reliable source. So ~~weak delete~~ for now. 07:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Based on that 3rd source by Facha93, I'm moving to keep. That source, plus the second one they supplied (much weaker) and the ones I found move this over the bar and clearly meets WP:N... Hobit (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Major problem here that I just noticed. There is no indication of what reference goes with which material. I didn't notice it until this edit. No indication of what the references relate to. So which material comes from which sources? We can't have just a random list of sources. Sourcing doesn't work that way. You gotta say that a point comes from this source. We don't do random lists of sources and then leave it up to the reader to figure out what comes from which. Very very bad idea for BLP articles. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this sources which I think are reliable [10], [11] and this one I guess is the most reliable of all [12]. Facha93 (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still pretty weak sources. And it still doesn't touch on her notability. How does being on Nashville Star for a few weeks push her over the edge into notability? Because it's long established that being a semi-finalist on Idol generally isn't enough. She didn't even make the wild card show. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 01:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hobit, the sources I found are strong and being on Nashville Star makes her notable, why being a finalist on American Idol makes people notable and not being on Nashville Star? Facha93 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. Nashville Star does not have nearly the reach of American Idol. If you look at the Nashville Star page, generally only the winners have articles. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 21:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You said it 'generally', this is the exception. 190.134.51.180 (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep - While I believe that the article's current condition may not reach notability standards, I also believe that there is a possibility that the article may still be expanded given that the show (and tour) has just recently ended and there is still little time for the semi-finalists and finalists to get their work done. I do think that if after six months the article is not expanded and/or there is no major (or even medium-sized) release (or activity) from the artist, then there is no reason not to delete.--23prootie (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Possibly qualifies #1 of WP:ENTERTAINER as a professional reality star.--23prootie (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks reliable sources to pass WP:BIO and does not pass any criteria of WP:MUSIC. The sources located in the article either are either first-hand sources, fan sites or non-reliable sources. I was waiting to comment to see if any of the links provided in the AfD would be added to the article. Since they have not, I have to judge the article as it stands now. She should have some reliable sources being on the two shows, but unfortunately she does not. For the sources provided here 1) Fox4kc - trivial mention, 2) realitytvworld - non-reliable source, 3) MTV - trivial mention, 4) Mahalo - non-reliable source, and 5) Los Angeles Times - trivial mention. The best sources is 6) The York Dispatch but it fails the first criteria of WP:MUSIC because this is an interview that fails "other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves." If this would be considered a reliable source it is only one failing the "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." Aspects (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you not only don't have to "judge the article as it stands now" you aren't supposed to. AfD is about the topic meeting our guidelines, not the article. See WP:DEL. Secondly, failing WP:MUSIC isn't a reason to delete if if meets WP:N. So we have [13] which is an entire (very long) article about the topic in a RS, [14] which is an entire (very short) article about the topic in an RS, [15] which certainly appears to be a RS that is about 25% about the topic and ~3 other RSes which spend a few sentences on her. It's 3 non-trivial reliable sources with a fair bit of borderline trivial coverage past that. Clearly over the bar of [WP:N]. Hobit (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with Hobit, we should judge the topic, not the article as it is now. The sources are reliable and not trival. Facha93 (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to keep. --The article could relatively pass right now after some editing.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 22:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been added, though. Reference format have been fixed but they are still very poor references. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 00:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added new sources including one that is very reliable (yes the MTV one).--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 05:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very minor TV celeb. Sources are insufficient to establish importance as required by WP:BIO. GlassCobra 20:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No actual reason for deletion was provided until Otto4711 joined the discussion, so consensus for deletion could not eventuate. Still, the discussion shows that any problem the article might have with being an indiscriminate collection of information (as opposed to a legitimate WP:SS spinout) could be solved by editing it down to a reduced size and merging it back to the main article, always assuming editorial consensus exists for this. Sandstein 05:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo hoax in popular culture[edit]

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

Right, so this is: a series of miscellaneous popular culture references to a conspiracy theory. Hey Nonny (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominator has failed to present any reason for deletion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Right now I'm thinking "Keep," but I'm wondering, what's the basis for the nomination? TJRC (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be kept (the print and film references are of particular value) but it should be heavily trimmed. References involving actual interactions with NASA personnel, perhaps, but a why refer to a commercial for a drink, or single statement in an episode of a soap opera? --TS 23:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Content fork. That's the explanation I'd have given if I'd listed this. I agree it was not listed properly. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not a content fork. This is a Article spinout from original article that was becoming too long. Could do with being better cited, and could lose a lot of trivia, but that's not a reason for deletion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If kept I suggest renaming to Apollo hoax theories in popular culture. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the main article. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No rationale for deletion presented by nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article could do with some citations but otherwise is a good article. Far too big to stay in the main article, which is already extremely long. I also agree with the rename so I'll post it on the talk page. _Met^ty 17:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MetricSuperstar. Perfectly fine as a pop-culture article: a well known fringe theory that pops up is all sorts of pop-cultural references. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the claim that the landings were faked is unquestionably notable; splitting the popular culture references from the lengthy main article for convenience is a reasonable solution to the length issue. TJRC (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge - I don't see much need for this article, but I am totally against merging it to the main article on the Moon landing hoax. Bubba73 (talk), 04:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trivia sections in articles are discouraged. This is one big trivia section. Also, there are practically no secondary sources (i.e. third-party coverage) to establish the notability of this material. Bubba73 (talk), 06:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with modified title: The material is clearly notable for two reasons: (1) NASA defenders point to such cultural references as the original and a continuing source of popular doubt about Apollo's veracity. (2) NASA skeptics point to these same cultural references as Hollywood's standard method of presenting controversial truth veiled as fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeSkepticalOfAll (talk • contribs)
Delete, no merge - WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a directory of every time "moon landing hoax" is mentioned in any book, movie or TV episode. The moon landing hoax theory is undoubtedly notable. A list of every time it's referenced, mentioned off-handedly or the subject of a throwaway joke is not. There's encyclopedic value in such random entries as "In an episode of The Whitest Kids U'Know, Trevor Moore tells a group of young schoolchildren that the Moon landings were faked." and "There is a song by metal band Margret Heater called "Apollo Conspiracy"." and "In the outtakes/end credits for the film Daddy Day Care, the cameraman is struggling to focus the camera. Eddie Murphy then says, "This is why I know we didn't land on the moon.""? Really? Nonsense. This is meaningless trash. Otto4711 (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; merge whatever bits of info may be worth merging back to the "hoax" article. Unless someone can really find reliable sources describing specifically the popular culture impact of the conspiracy theory of the concept that there was a hoax of the moon landing, there's no way to support an independent fork like this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 15:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flyff[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable online game; no sources, promotional tone, COI ("the DM asked me to write this article") Orange Mike | Talk 21:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — How can a game that has been translated into several different languages & has articles on several different language wiki's, not be notable? There are several sources, all within the article. The promotional tone is being worked on & has in general improved. Jasenm222 has not been the only person editing the article, sure they provided the majority of the info. How is being asked to write an article by someone any different that WP:AFC? This article has been changed in the passed & was keep every other time it has been listed under the article name Flyff. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 22:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply AFC is a process whereby a neutral third party is asked to create an article, based on some evidence of notability. "The DMs asked me to write this" evidences some strong conflict of interest. The fact that after two prior AfDs the "article" is still basically a fluffy gamers guide with grossly excessive gaming information and in-universe narrative reflects the COI interests of primary author Jasenm222. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete. Per nom. How many times will this discussion take place? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

NO

Have you even looked at the page since yesterday I come in everyday to tweak it. I have put many hours into this page. It has changed a lot and yes it still needs work but I do not think it is fair for you to attack it. Would in not be more productive to explain what is wrong. Video Games are a part of the site. I have removed what looked like guide info and it is much more neutral. I removed all "you" references and replaced with "the user". My intention is not to promote but to inform. We are not schooled in encyclopedic writing. We are encouraged to use writing forms that are not accepted here. I have been searching for criteria to help me in my wording of this page, guidelines in what is appropriate and what in not. This is a very large site and finding what we need is not always easy. The use of layman's terms should be encouraged on the guide pages for understanding what we find in not always obvious. The only person I have found to be helpful in the least is ɠu¹ɖяy. Writing a wiki page on internet video games with all of the criteria demanded here is not as easy as it may seem. Online video games are not documented in the same way as computer or console games. The fact that the industry does not cover these games as intensively should not affect their importance. How can a game that has survived 6 years on today's market not be notable. I have every intention to bring this page to standards. This will be achieved more promptly with help then hindrance. (this is from my post on talk page) Jasenm222 (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that Flyff is notable. It gets mentioned in several gaming news sites: [16][17][18][19] If the subject is notable, which it is, then COI, promotional and sourcing are all reasons for clean-up, not deletion, in my opinion. We wouldn't delete an article on Microsoft just because it contained promotional aspects. We would fix it. _Met^ty 17:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider those (mostly regurgitated press releases) to constitute substantial coverage in reliable sources. You don't agree, okay; but don't accuse me of doing no research. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More links to reliable sources [20][21][22]. Google search for "flyff" results in over 3million results (even though a lot of them are game money selling sites). Hell according to xfire stats, it's the currently the 42nd highest played game right now.[23] I still fail to see how this is not a notable game. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 21:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the best point made is that alot of PC games that are not heard in mainstream media. Myself I consider IGN a reliable source and I think mource sourcing would be ideal but it is enough to stand on it's own. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm not saying this is a perfect article, it just needs some work, by citing more & cleaning up. And really more & more people are working on this article now, than just Jasenm222. He just got the ball rolling & has provided a nice large, but still rough foundation. I do applaud Jasenm222 on all his hard work, especially since it his first very large contribution to Wikipedia. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 01:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The IGN story cited in the article plus [24] and perhaps [25] provide enough sourcing to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scrap and rewrite, using available reliable sources. The only content worth keeping in there right now is the infobox. Nifboy (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain your !vote? Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure: It's not really a !vote (that is, it's not actionable) so much as it is a comment that the article is in really bad shape and could stand to be trimmed down to the essentials plus what the sources will support. For instance, I wouldn't devote a whole section to equipment customization unless it's a substantial part of the game and/or the explanation is necessary to give context to a later piece of e.g. reception. Nifboy (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup – there's awards there and some coverage by multiple reliable sources, asserting notability. However, I have to agree that the vast majority of the content in the page is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (i.e. game guide material and overdetailed minutiae) and can probably be removed. Hopefully, someone can step up—preferably someone good enough to be able to write in a more professional and formal manner than what I see right now—and take charge of this article (hence, the cleanup part). MuZemike 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – as far as "not being schooled in encyclopedic writing" is concerned, here's how I personally approach articles. Approach them like you're writing an essay for school. Follow all the basic English, grammar, and usage rules that you know so far, skim over Wikipedia's Manual of Style as far as layout and structure is concerned, and look at examples from other well-written video game articles out there. It's like in Dodgeball—if you know how to write an essay, you know how to write an encyclopedic article. MuZemike 22:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Somebody that doesnt regularly edit it should cut it all down and rewrite it based on the references. Most of the "Gameplay", "Social Systems", and "Other Game Features/Systems" mini sections needs to get merged into a summarized paragraph or two. Wikipeida isnt a gameguide, but this is somewhat notable. It has an ok Development section. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above - runescape has a page why cant this? Besides all you need is to fix it up a bit and Itll be fine. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 07:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 Bars[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. I searched Google, and most hits are blogs or forums providing unofficial downloads of this supposed song, and an article on MTV News mentions it only briefly in a promotion for the Lil Wayne episode of Behind the Music. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this song. Joe Chill (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find significant mentions in third party sources or any indications it meets WP:MUSIC, less WP:GNG. Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable song, by a notable artist --T-rex 02:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Song is not notable. Lourie Pieterse 15:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida News[edit]

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

I have removed the speedy from the article, since notability is asserted by the presence of multiple sources. Furthermore, this article has existed since 2005, so a discussion is warranted to determine if it's notable.

Even though there are multiple sources, none of them are enough to establish notability. This article, this article, and this article are all passing mentions of this blog. I have searched for sources and have been unable to find any. Since "Florida News" is a search term that returns many unrelated terms, I may have missed coverage about this blog. If at least two nontrivial reliable sources about this blog are found, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the editor who added the speedy delete tag. Judging by the rather novel standards being used for websites at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombietime, it is safe to say that the passing mentions of this blog do not convey sufficient coverage. What is currently at the linked URL is not even the blog that the article discusses; what is currently there has only 13 posts, dating from May — July 2007; what the article discusses is a blog which apparently was at that site earlier. (Blogspot seems to allow domains to be reused from time to time). The Internet archive's last entry for the blog described is from June 26, 2006 [26], complete with the requisite self-promotional link to the Wikipedia article in the upper right corner of the site. Outside of breaking one story, this blog was entirely non-notable, and only the wayback machine allows us to see that. There is a bit of coverage on the one story in the first three references, and a single mention in the fourth reference, but no substantive coverage at all. Horologium (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Horologium. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like the article has four sources, I'd say that's pretty good for a blog. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources mentions the blog in a single sentence, another mentions that the blog was the first to report a story (in a single sentence); only one (an interview with the blogger which appeared in Creative Loafing), has more than a passing mention of the blog. (The fourth link is a dead link to the post, in the blog's previous incarnation). FWIW, one has to work to get to that blog post, since the Internet Archive has no direct links to the December 2004 version of the blog. Horologium (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was noted for being the first to break a story, and other media sat down for an interview with the blogger, that's a pretty good case for notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombietime, in which quite a few editors are arguing the opposite. FWIW, I support retention of that article, because of far more substantial coverage. It looks to be headed for deletion, and there's a lot more discussion of that than this, with passing mentions in two articles in the same newspaper (the St. Petersburg Times), and a blog interview in a free alternative weekly. Horologium (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This defunct blog clearly fails WP:WEB. As Horologium points out it has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delano Roberts[edit]

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

An autobiography of a blogger that appears to fail WP:BIO. Lacks GHits and GNEWS support. ttonyb (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I prodded for deletion this autobio of a non notable blogger thet fails WP:BIO.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources or otehr indications of notability and I don't count the ongoing vote on bestonblogspot with currently 12 votes as a notable award. Disclosure: I've speedily deleted a previous version under a different title.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:48, 23 September 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. I wouln't call it A7, rather lack of context. Tone 21:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quake towers[edit]

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

In my opinion the article lacks notability. Jayson (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Article does not indicate notability of the subject. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They look fun to build, but not at all article worthy, lacking notability. If some proof can be found that these quake towers lead engineers to improve the design of a major building, I'll gladly change my vote. AP1787 (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 18:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sneeze (game)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability Xenocide^Talk^|^{Contributions} 21:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes it is indeed notable. Reliable sources are already provided, and the article thereby meets WP:GNG. Many more do exist. Just because these are from foreign papers does not mean they are not RS. There is much more that can be written about this too. Being a stub does not make an article not worthy of inclusion. As for nom's argument, see WP:JNN. Xyz7890 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is mostly OR, and the only sourcing appears to be a single wire service article that has appeared in different papers with slightly different editing (possibly translation/retranslation effects). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only does it have multiple sources, these are excellent articles on the subject. I don't see any OR here, but having some OR is not grounds for deleting an entire article. Some of the information may be derived from the subject itself. Per WP: PRIMARY, this is permitted for some information in an article with outside sources. Pink cloudy sky (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the NYT and Times of India chose to cover it, it's notable. Meets WP:N quite easily. Hobit (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability established with reliable sources in the original version. Was the ONE MINUTE between the original article posting and the nomination for deletion really enough time for the nominator to consider the sources and notability? Why was the WP:Before policy ignored before nominating this article for deletion?Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g12, obvious copyright violation, down to the byline at the end. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foreclosure Crisis Shatters the American Dream for Hispanics[edit]

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

Where to start? WP:NOTNEWS, WP:OR among others, should be speedied, but no criterion fits. ukexpat (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neurocinema[edit]

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

Neologism; Google finds no hits that apply to the topic of this article. There is only one source given and it does not use this term at all. Looie496 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me correct my statement: the source does use the term once. But I still don't feel that that's enough to justify an article. Looie496 (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources for this. Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as Neologism: the stub even says "The word "Neurocinema" was coined ... in 2009." Bearian (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wired.com and Popular Science will cover neurocinema soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardofcheese (talk • contribs)

Excellent! That will be the time to create a Wikipedia article. Even if it is deleted now, nothing will keep you from creating it again once you have adequate sources. Looie496 (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Neo. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a recent article article published on MentalFloss.com about neurocinema. http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/34584 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousneakymonkey (talk • contribs) — Yousneakymonkey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The message above was the first contrib by this editor. Looie496 (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the Wired.com about neurocinema. http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/09/neurocinema-aims-to-change-the-way-movies-are-made/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousneakymonkey (talk • contribs)

Comment Now that's a proper source. I'm not quite sure that it establishes notability according to Wikipedia's rigorous standards, but I can say that if it had been used by the article at the start, I wouldn't have set up this AfD. (Yes, I'm aware that it has only now been published.) Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One article is not significant coverage. Even with one wired ref the article is still too new to be credible. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation. Chick Bowen 01:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lt Col James H Brahney[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, probably intended as a memorial ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that being inducted into a state military hall of fame, as asserted in the article, if a valid claim of notability, so I would oppose deletion. However, speedy delete as copyvio of this obituary; it appears that the obit was simply cut-and-pasted into article space, then edited down and touched up without adding any significant original content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dances of Universal Peace[edit]

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

Not notable Wikid ^as© 20:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have added 4 books published by major publishing houses which mention Dances of Universal Peace. These attest to its notability. Lumos3 (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I updated the article with more information. The DUP are practiced worldwide, are part of the religious curricula of churches such as the UUA, and are held in church buildings of diverse denominations.
Sctechlaw (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject notable and article isn't too short. Lourie Pieterse 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jeremy Silman. Not much to merge at the moment actually... Tone 18:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Amateur's Mind[edit]

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

I do not see this book as notable along Wikipedia:Notability (books) SyG (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book has recieved many positive reviews, and Silman is a legendary chess writer and teacher. Grand Mattster 20:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two references. from Chessbase.com and The behavioral advantage: what the smartest, most successful companies do By Terry R. Bacon, David George Pugh page 84 SunCreator (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, neither of those are references... the first link only names the book in question, the entire article is about computer software, and the second link is nothing more than a quote from the book, no discussion...

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge and Redirect - Non-notable book, fails WP:BK... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Changed per comments and discussion below... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The few reference that were used on this article (until I just deleted them) had nothing to even do with this book... refs #1 & #3 were detailing the author's other book "How to Reassess Your Chess" (the quoteed review was for the "How to Reassess Your Chess" book also, not this book), and ref #2 made no mention of any book at all... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Amateur's Mind also featured as a Chess Life column in the early 1990s. Given that the book has received some independent reviews, and given the fame of the author, I think there is a reasonable chance that the book is indeed notable. Nevertheless, my vote is to merge this with Jeremy Silman for two reasons. First, the article here is awfully short, I have a hard time justifying independent articles without more content than this. Second, Silman's concepts of imbalances are also covered in other books he authored, such as How to Reassess Your Chess. These concepts have been the subject of further independent study (e.g. the article Don't Just Reassess Your Chess--IMPLODe It! by Dana Mackenzie in the May 2008 Chess Life), and should be covered somewhere, but I think it is better to do that on the Silman biography than here. The Amateur's Mind covers the kind of mistakes typical of amateur players, and often offers humorously harsh assessment of their play. This is only one aspect of Silman's work. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I think of it, perhaps the book itself is not notable, but Silman's imbalances definetly are. As mentioned above, the imbalances are listed in other books by Silman. Maybe it would be worth considering creating a new page devoted to Silman's imbalances. This would be my new vote. Grand Mattster 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, could I just merge "The Amateur's Mind" into a new page, "Silman's Imbalances"? Grand Mattster 16:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the imbalances themselves are somehow notable (on their own), my recommendation would be to simply add a section to his article for them... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I think an extended section on Silman's theories in his article would be a good idea, with citations from his own books. SyG (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds alright to me. Grand Mattster 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jeremy Silman; merge content there.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jeremy Silman; merge content there for the reasons given by everyone above. Krakatoa (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is "weak keep". Hm. Well, keep then... Tone 18:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trevvy[edit]

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

This article does not tell us why it should be relevant. It has only one editor, is highly advertising and confusing. I do not think that the content is worth to be improved. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep Covered in multiple sources, but depth & reliability of coverage is iffy. Delete Unable to locate any significant coverage in reliable sources. Article cites only the website itself. Pure WP:ARTSPAM. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's another independent source to add to this one that's already in the article, and, according to Google Scholar, this academic paper mentions Trevvy, but I don't have access to the full text. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Altough currently in need of RSs, Phil Bridger search indicates sources exist. If the claims made by the primary source are true, this looks notable to me. The Brandrepublic source confirms it as being the oldest and aslso the re-branding — good enough to show notability.Yob Mod 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Per Cybercobra. Lourie Pieterse 15:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Day[edit]

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

No sources cited in article, unable to find substantial coverage in reliable sources so appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF snigbrook (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unnotable person. Fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PROF. No significant coverage in reliable sources, making it also a WP:BLP issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Collectonian. Joe Chill (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The person is not notable. Lourie Pieterse 15:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derf[edit]

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

No attempt to establish notability, no sources. DreamGuy (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, DG. Here are my reasons for keep:

Has a regular strip, The City, published in a number of newspapers.
Has a number of graphic novels published by Slave Labor Graphics, a well-established and leading alt-comics publisher.
His book My Friend Dahmer was nominated for an Eisner Award, a leading industry award.
Has an entry in the Lambiek Comiclopedia, a leading internet resource regarding international cartoonists.

Gamaliel (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need multiple instances of independent, reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage to demonstrate enough notability for a separate article. The Lambiek Comiclopedia lists "over 10,000 comic artists from around the world" so surely you can't seriously be claiming that an entry there has anything to do with demonstrating enough notability for a Wikipedia entry. Mere publication isn't enough to demonstrate notability either. Winning major industry awards are an indicator of notability, but nomination is not. DreamGuy (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derf also appears in the anthology Best American Comics, part of the notable Best American annual series from Houghton Mifflin.

He was the subject of an exhibition at the Akron Art Museum. Gamaliel (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve references need work but he appears to be notable under WP:CREATIVE. Simonm223 (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please specify what part of WP:CREATIVE you think he meets? DreamGuy (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Derf" and "The City" are annoying to search for, but I found some decent-looking sources: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Some of the books without previews may be worth checking out: [33], [34], [35]. Editor & Publisher apparently ran a story, but it's buried behind paywalls; no idea how extensive it is. The Akron Beacon Journal has numerous articles on him; they may not count towards notability as he worked there, but they can certainly be cited in this article. He won the RFK Journalism Prize. The Akron Art Museum ran an exhibition of his work.[36]--Chris Johnson (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source - certainly makes a case as a marginal creative, if we can get some decent citations. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it - Prominent alternative artist covered by Time Magazine, etc. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - covered by TIME magazine, eh? Care to provide a cite? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's the third source I cited.--Chris Johnson (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, conveniently listed under "references" in the article. The article has quoted the Time review since 2007. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per Dream Guy: "Winning major industry awards are an indicator of notability". Derf won the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award for cartooning in 2006. Hiding T 10:21, 24 September 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. NW (Talk) 16:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addiction Worldwide[edit]

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

Delete - unable to find any WP:RS mentioning this organization. Appears to fail WP:N. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:ADVERT, WP:RS, and WP:N. They did have a clever site though that gave me a great deal of entertainment for a bit. AP1787 (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article complies to the following: WP:ADVERT, WP:N. Lourie Pieterse 15:12, 25 September 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. NW (Talk) 16:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Keller[edit]

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

This person is not notable, and the article reads like an advertisement for his (only) published book Loqui (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A worthy educator but does not appear to be WP notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. High-school teachers are not notable per se and I don't see anything that distinguishes his SAT prep-book from the numerous others on the market. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. Lourie Pieterse 15:11, 25 September 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. NW (Talk) 16:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obilo Ng'ongo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Obilo Ng'ongo

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

Not-notable actor. The text itself, from which I've plucked a number of peacock feathers, already makes little claim to notability, and the four references don't help much either. The first is a link to a website for Kenyan teachers of French, which doesn't mention the subject (and as a teacher he wouldn't be notable anyway.) The second is an announcement on a blog that establishes he performed as an actor. The third, a not necessarily reliable source, mentions him (once) and a couple of other comedians. The fourth is the most reliable source of them all: the French paper La Croix, in a piece on the festival of Avignon, mentions and cites one sentence from our subject on the pleasures of the festival, and identifies him as an enthusiastic theater student.

That’s all of it, I’m afraid: no notability established as actor, teacher, or translator. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well, what La Croix says is that he was on the stage at the university of Avignon, which isn't quite the same as saying he's a student.~~ (later) I'll be damned, "en stage" doesn't mean on the stage. It means "studying at". Back to French school for S Marshall! (/later)
There's not enough material for a separate article there, though, and I've looked for reliable sources without finding any. Drmies is correct: delete.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rd232 ^talk 15:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I created this article and I am inclined to agree on the notability issue.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High culture[edit]

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

Reason- Article does not contain a single clear citation of the term 'High culture',and does not even demonstrate that this term is of recognised use or definition. It pretends this term was used by Matthew Arnold for example, without being able to produce a quote from him or any other of the cultural critics who are named. References on Google to 'high culture' are either to this article or derivatives from it, or to journalism punning on 'high' meaning drugged. Basically the whole thing is a WP:OR ramble So DELETE.Smerus (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a good article now. An article on the topic seems like it would be possible, but needs some real sources that discuss the topic itself in depth.Borock (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A recognized term. While article needs more citations, I'm baffled by this nomination. Clearly notable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JohnnyB256, this is a term that is recognized. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The association with Matthew Arnold stands up - see here, for example. Other sources contrast the concept with popular culture and so the article suits us nicely. The rest is a matter of article improvement not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High Society is what it is often called, but reading through the article, its the same thing. Upper class has a similar concept. We can also call them Snotty Elitist I suppose. Dream Focus 13:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very well known term. Two editors voting delete should read Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in deletion_discussions#Poorly_written article before !voting on or nominating another article. Ikip (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well known term, well written article. _Met^ty 18:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in both undergrduate and graduate courses, I recall comparisons of high versus low culture coming up in class. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a waste-of-time nomination of an article whose subject, I would have thought, would have been obviously notable to a 59-year-old graduate of Kings College, Cambridge. A few of the books on the subject are ISBN 9780631214144, ISBN 9780631223092, ISBN 9781863738705 and ISBN 9780465026098. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article could be better written (i.e., more lucid and more elegant), it does cover a notable subject that is not well-covered elsewhere. Consider too that Highbrow is a colloquialism for High culture, and as such is rich in its own meanings although distinct from its progenitor in the same way as are many such colloquialisms. (Hint: the previous two sentences are written from a 'high culture' perspective, and as well are written in a 'highbrow' style.) Sctechlaw (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article may not live up to its name, but it is an important one. --WngLdr34 (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Belgariad. NW (Talk) 16:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orb of Aldur[edit]

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

Unnotable fictional element of a book series of questionable notability. Fails WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:WAF. Prod removed by User:Fluck with note of "it was quite entertaining" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Belgariad. The book series is clearly notable, and this is a major element of the plot of the series, so I think this would be good as a redirect. Calathan (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agree with Calathan. Central element to a notable fictional series. However as a stand alone article it doesn't seem to have independant notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Calathan and WP:BEFORE (an AfD nomination when there's a clear merge target).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional element which has not received substantial coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect plausible search term. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:43, 24 September 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. SNOW, speedy, whatever... Tone 21:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nod[edit]

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

Creator (or somebody else) tried to use a ((hangon)) tag on a PROD. I removed it, as I knew what he meant to do.

It is very obvious, and even openly stated, that this was just made up one day. Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original prodder. Per nom and the article, quite clearly fails WP:MADEUP. Tim Song (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously made-up; not notable Chzz ► 17:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Made up. Joe Chill (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Clearly made up.Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Pure junk. Gibberish. Why hasn't this been nuked already? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unverifiable. A poster child for WP:MADEUP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above WP:Snow no reason to extend this. Jamesofur (talk) 02:44, 19 September 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Robinson (footballer)[edit]

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

Unless he has played for Derby he doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE Spiderone 16:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 16:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. He has never played in the Football League for either Blackpool or Derby. Giant Snowman 17:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not fail WP:GNG as a Google News search shows significant coverage in newspapers. In addition, this search appears to show that he did have a contract with Albion. Chzz ► 17:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I click on that Google News link, I just get the message "Your search did not match any documents".......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete footballer fails notability for sportspeople at WP:ATH as he hasn't played at a fully-professional level. Having a contract at a club isn't sufficient as thousands of players have had contracts but never played at a fully-professional level. Fails WP:GNG due to independent coverage about his exploits as a player, just the usual run of the mill reports/transfer news/player profiles which fail WP:NTEMP. Google searches do not confer notabilty. --Jimbo^[online] 18:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with Jimbo and nom. WP:ATHLETE failure and coverage is all non-notable run-of-mill coverage as all players down to local level get. Simply having your name in the paper is not notability--ClubOranje^T 21:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. GauchoDude (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus here indicates that this topic is sufficiently notable to pass WP:NOTNEWS, as it was and still to an extent is a major event. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George H.W. Bush vomiting incident[edit]

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

Trivial, embarrassing incident with no evidence of long-term notability. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and goes against the spirit of WP:BLP. The only citation is a single news article from 1992. *** Crotalus *** 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and or Merge with G.H.W. Bush. The event was quite notable at the time and remains so today, and thus merits coverage in encyclopedic form. Whether it should be covered with its own article or as part of a larger article is an editorial decision, not a deletion one. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak KeepId like to see why in the long term this event is notable. the articles present state doesnt suggest this. I would say the article is young though and likely could be developed. There are refences to the event in Bushes autobiographies and other websites in a basic search on google. Id say lets keep and see where its going, if no where then we could revisit in deletion discussion Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge into a 1-liner in the Bush article. The only 'facts' here are that he threw up, on this day, in this place - hence a 1-line mention will be fine. At present, it puts an inappropriate spin on an incident about someone being ill - describing it as a 'gaff' is not appropriate. Although there is indeed press coverage, that doesn't mean it necessarily deserves an article - it is definitively WP:ONEEVENT (the subject is, I mean). If, in the fullness of time, the facts in the Bush article are expanded to the point where a separate article is required, then fair enough - but for now, this article is not required. Chzz ► 18:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. ~~Important~~Notorious incident that certainly would be worth an article, but this isn't it yet. Can break out one from the main article in the future if more information is added. Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too would support a merge if consensus steers that way, but to what article?Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to George H. W. Bush. The nominator notes there is only one citation from 1992 in the article, but should have done a Google News search to see if there was additional significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. There is, right up to this year. Starting with recent coverage, to show it is still seen as a notable incident in his presidency, there is The Telegraph in 2009 which said Bush's upchucking made him a "notable victim" of a norovirus. The Houston Chronicle (2008) said it was the Number one travel blunder, and "Who could forget" it. The Denver Post in 2006 compared it to Cheney shooting a friend in the face. The BBC in 2003 had 72 words on the vomiting. Time in 2001 said the BushSr was "best remembered in Japan for barfing (vomiting) in the lap of the then-Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa during a state dinner" and has more coverage. It had secondary coverage in a satiric play reviewed in the Rock Mountain News in 2000 and in an art exhibit reviewed that year in "Art in America.". In 2000, the New York Times said Bush Sr's presidency was discredited by "bad syntax, pandering to the religious right vomiting on unsuspecting Japanese." That should be enough to demonstrate that it would present an unbalanced view of the historical and popular view of Bush Sr's presidency if the lap barfing were removed altogether. A couple of sentences in the Bush bio article would be sufficient, in my view. A bio article must not be a whitewashing puff piece which leaves out well remembered and widely covered gaffes. Edison (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a closer look at some of your citations. That New York Times piece you link is a movie review, which is opinion, rather than a straight news piece. It's not even political opinion, but rather a feature story, in which embellishment and even hyperbole are acceptable. However, the stuff from the Beeb, the Houston Chronicle, and Time are more than enough to satisfy verifiability. Most of the other deletes or merges focus not on verifiability but on notability. Horologium (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-known event which many people will be interested in learning the details about, even though it has no substantial importance in the great sceme of things. Borock (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP. This was a widely covered event with plenty of sources that just need to be added to the article. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is more coverage when Bush goes in for a routine medical exam or sneezes. The fact that the news covered it at the time makes it news, it doesn't make it notable.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Embarrassing but not trivial. Received worldwide coverage at the time. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was widely reported incident. --DAJF (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:NOT#NEWS, Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. This is an isolated incident without any historical context, a mention in the president's article should be sufficient. Them From Space 04:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Weak keep/neutral as I could go either way on the not news issue, and points raised by others here evidence long-term notability. Them From Space 03:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Widely reported, but not important enough as a stand-alone article. There was widespread coverage of Jimmy Carter's hemorrhoid surgery, but we don't have a separate article on that either. If it needs to be mentioned at all, merge a single line into the main article. Horologium (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two previous delete !votes ignore the sources I cited which specifically said it was notable and which are 17 years after the incident. Certainly not a trivial and soon forgotten incident, and more of an historic embarrassment. Edison (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Borock et al. This was a huge diplomatic incident in Japan. To this day, to vomit in public is "to do a Bush" in Japanese. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edison and I have found some sources, some better than others. I added mine and will add Edison's. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC) All done! Bearian (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to GHWB article per WP:NOT#NEWS. A trivial moment that was forgotten shortly after Clinton became president. Notability is forever, and this is already forgotten. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten? Really? Because I remember it pretty damn clearly, and I was 14 when it happened. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten in the collective sense ... I also remember my marching band appearing at the Coca-Cola 100th anniversary parade when I was 14 ... it was covered in the press, but like this, it was forgotten in the grand scheme of things and should not be the subject of an article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the criterion for notability of any event that's not so recent is that it has not been forgotten in the grand scheme of things, then Wikipedia should shed a very large number of articles. Meanwhile, Google has a lot of hits for the combination of Bush and Miyazawa (both in Japanese script) and the stem of one neutral Japanese term for "vomit"; enough not to show that this event was neither notable in any normal sense nor significant in the grand scheme of things but merely to show that it is hardly forgotten. -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no objection to a merge. I agree with Edison that this is a notable enough event for a mention in the main article but it certainly doesn't merit its own page. However, I dislike AfDs attempting to press content on the editors of other articles. The way forward is to start a discussion on the main article talk page to achieve consensus as to what, if anything, should be included. TerriersFan (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Our actual rules are not of much assistance. A separate article is certainly justified according the the GNG rules; but, as the WP:N rules say, a separate article is not required for everything justified there.. Not News doesn't apply--very little a president does in public or private will actually qualify for not news, as it will all find its way into history books and biographies, and it all will thus have historical notability. We could technically justify in this manner at least one article for essentially every working day for the executive of each major country. Which events then are appropriate for separate articles? I think we need to return to the basic principle that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a collection of fragments, and therefore we shouldn't write in a fragmentary manner. Therefore, we should be relatively limited here, including only those that are known very widely as separate events. I accept the argument that this particular event has --certainly on an international basis, perhaps even more so than in the US. I'm not that happy with including it, and I wouldn't carry extend the analogy very far.--I contrast it with the George W. Bush pretzel incident which has much less widespread coverage, & much less actual importance on world opinion. I'm not sure about the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident, whjch would be justified if at all by its role in the re-election campaign. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, "weak keep" means to me that this is my opinion, but I would not think anyone wrong who concluded the opposite nor will I try very hard to persuade them DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising keep I saw this AfD and immediately thought, wow there is an article that is nothing but a fork that needs to be deleted. But actually reading it changed my mind. I don't think it would work if it were merged, it is too minor of an incident to warrant more than a passing comment on the main Bush page. But it is definitely a significant enough event to warrent keeping. Thus, it needs its own article... surprisingly.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to delete thanks to Hoary's research below... it was enough the I decided to look closer at the citations and what was going on:
  1. Reference one is an article simply reporting that Bush got sick and was embarrassed, but doesn't make this incident notable. The news reports when the president goes in for a routine medical exam.
  2. Reference two is a single sentence referencing the incident... the sentence is cited in the article, but a single sentence does not make significant coverage. Again, being spoofed by late night TV is nothing new for the president.
  3. Reference three is a "letter" but is really an opinion piece that reeks with bias and hyperbole that it's value in presenting the facts is seriously undermined.
  4. Refence four currently references to an article of the 25 biggest public meltdowns. The two sentence statement is quoted twice in full and once in part in the article. This is the only reference which gives any credence to the event, but is it still not covering the incident itself, it is trivial in nature.
  5. Reference five basically cites reference 4 and makes an analysis of it. The quote, from an opinion piece, is more or less taken out of context and should be removed.
  6. Reference six is a list of completely unreliable sources.
  7. Reference seven is from Nathaniel Blumberg's blog. Who/what is Nathaniel Blumberg? An unreliable source. If the Baltimore Sun reports this, then find a reliable source that makes the claim... not an unreliable source such as this. Heck, the page the excerpt is form is the Lighter side of the Treasure State Review---a twelve page periodical. And the part being cited is from the bullets below the excerpt wherein the author highlights key findings of the TSR... but no data on the actual Baltimore Sun article that is supposedly being cited.
  8. Reference eight merely confirms that Bush got sick, it says about Bush, in total, "Infection does not result in lasting immunity, so anyone can become infected. Notable victims have included the Queen (on Royal Yacht Britannia) and George Bush Sr (filmed vomiting at a function in Japan)." Guess what, I would not be surprised if most presidents have gotten sick.
  9. Reference nine is a link to the very reliable source, Wikipedia, and the two quotes that Wikipedia is purported to support do not appear on the page. EDIT: Based upon Edison's edit above, I'm going to assume that Berian meant to link to this list. Please note that the article reads, The Houston Chronicle in 2008 said it was the "Number one travel blunder," and "Who could forget" it. Actually, the article does not say, it was the "Number one travel blunder." It does list it as the number one travel blunder, but that is a significant misquote. Furthermore, again, we are talking about a trivial mention. Two sentences does not significant coverage make, per "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
  10. Reference ten has absolutely NOTHING to do with this, it is merely a link to an incident dealing with Cheney.
  11. Reference eleven is supposed to support the statement, "BBC gave significant coverage in 2003" but in reality there is a single sentence in an article on a visit by the Prime Minister to GW's ranch that references it. Clearly not "significant coverage."
  12. Reference twelve is a short one paragraph book review on a book "Dark Prince of Love" which does not mention the incident only that it is set Set against the backdrop of the George Bush presidential years.
  13. Reference thirteen the entirety of the reference to the vomiting incident is, Selwyn's subjects include the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle, George Bush vomiting at a diplomatic dinner during a trip to Japan and Nixon playing the piano. Clearly not substantial or meaningful.
  14. Reference fourteen The NY Times did not, as the article states, that the Bush presidency was discredited by "bad syntax, pandering to the religious right, vomiting on unsuspecting Japanese." The quote came from a movie reviewer for GQ whose article was published by the Times. The article was entitled, HOLIDAY FILMS; When Hollywood Puts Its Spin on the Oval Office and was about how becoming the President was no longer penacle of American aspirations "perhaps because the idea of the presidency as the pinnacle of American aspiration has been discredited by the behavior and/or character of the White House's post-Camelot occupants." Notice, the essay is not about Bush or discrediting his administration, but rather discrediting the notion that the "idea of the presidency as the pinnacle of American apiration." This is completely different from what the article reads.
- The rescue of this essay twists and manipulates the facts to such a degree that I have to question the editors bias and understanding of our basic principles. He has taken facts completely out of context and given them a spin to make this issue appear to be important. He then seems to try to incorporate every reference he can, regardless of how tenuous to pad the reference section of the article. There is no doubt this incident occured, as do thousands of other incidents during a presidential term, but that does not make them notable or worthy of their own article. As is, this article is nothing but a political fork. Hoary is right, the rescue of this article by Bearian is an abomination that Berian should, IMHO, be ashamed of.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Not only should he be ashamed of them, but I would go so far as to state that in my opinion the degree to which Berian twisted the facts would be borderline academic fraud!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What an extraordinary "rescue" Bearian has performed! Some highlights: ¶ The incident was a huge diplomatic incident in Japan; a major assertion, sourced from some chatty, jocular, and elsewhere utterly implausible "letter from Japan". ¶ According the Encyclopedia of political communication, "The incident caused a wave of late night television jokes and ridicule in the international community, even coining Bushu-suru which literally means 'to do the Bush thing'." Bollocks, it means "(to) Bush", or "(to) do a Bush". ¶ In January 2001, on the eve of the inauguration of George W. Bush, a writer noted the stark disparity blah blah blah. More from our one "letter from Japan". ¶ To this day, to vomit in public is "to do a Bush" or Bushu-suru in colloquial Japanese." For the latter half of which assertion our source is that ["]Treasure State Review["], WoodFIREAshes Press, Big Fork, MT, found at Nathaniel Blumberg's website, citing "The Baltimore Sun reports that the Japanese now use a socially acceptable verb for vomiting—Bushusuru: to do a Bush." Context makes it clear that this Sun article appeared not recently but in the early nineties. Whence the "To this day"? ¶ Linguistically and technically, the verb "to do" (suru) has the polite form shimasu, which may be used to make a verbal noun. This new learning amazes me, Sir Bearian. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes. ¶ ["]Time Asia["] wrote that the Bush Sr. was "best remembered in Japan for barfing (vomiting) in the lap of the then-Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa during a state dinner." No it didn't. That's again our chum Peter McKillop, in that one "letter" for Time's website -- not the actual magazine; you can read about McKillop's then-status here -- in which he also talks of a brutal tennis match with the Emperor of Japan, who along with his son, the Crown Prince, to use a Texas term, kicked George Bush's butt on the court. Yeah, right. -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That there is continuing coverage even in English (cited way above) shows that the incident was indeed notable and not just transient news. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ~~Hoary,~~ DGG, Borock, Bearian, etc., and using the Merge arguments from Edison as Keep arguments. It caused a diplomatic incident in Japan, and is still being talked about a long time after. Comparing this to news coverage on such events as Carter's hemorrhoid surgery doesn't fly, as the surgery didn't cause an international incident. The barfing did. — Becksguy (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident was considered notable enough to be prominently mentioned in this BBC obit of Miyazawa, and even in another's title Bush-cradling former PM dies.John Z (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure why someone is citing Hoary for a keep !vote. Anyway, delete per Balloonman and Hoary's thorough and detailed analysis of the sources. I can't possibly add more to their exposition and so I won't. Tim Song (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think a danger im seeing here is to delete something just because its written poorly (that extends to alot of articles out there). Im just a bit perplexed as to why something written poorly should be deleted on that merit (Correct me if this is not the merit)? Shouldnt we just undo the questionable edits (or re write them) if theres a problem with them? My big question is and maybe weve exhausted the search, but, is there some (maybe not alot) but some genuine respectable sources that establish notability of the event? Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The incident was covered in reliable sources and caused a diplomatic incident. I don't understand at all why this should be deleted. It clearly passes our notability guidelines. Offliner (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm all for rewriting, if we can find reliable sources that demostrate that this was more than a minor incident of lasting value. SO far, none of the sources really have shown that. All that they've shown is that sources can be misquoted and misrepresented.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentely there is about a paragraph devoted to the incident on george bushes page in the japanese wikipedia for those curious in checking with google translator (Ill also add that there is only the youtube video as a source present in that section so this is mostly for the curious) Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and based upon the sources provided, that is about the extent to which this merits an article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A merge redirect would be fine with me. If this is the route we do take i would highly recommend translating the japanese text and finding sourcing for it to include into the main bush article. The text is in good form in my thoughts it mainly highlights the diplomatic trip taken by bush, de-emphasizes the incident and puts focus on the realtions more between japan and the US. Ottawa4ever (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently about 1,100 words in this article. And I believe all this content should be kept, with expansion. Merging all that to the main Bush 41 article would be an WP:UNDUE problem there, which is why I oppose merging. — Becksguy (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing to keep in mind as balloonman and others have pointed out is the majority of the article can be trimmed anyway. The information that can be sourced accuraetly at this time is probably 2 to 3 sentances. A merge redirect is also pratcial becuase it will give the time necessary to find relevant sources to expand the topic. Persoannly i think the whole article would be better served focusing on Japan USA relations and not the vomitting incidednt Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not can be, should be. If this survives the AfD, then I will be undoing most of the edits Berian added because they do not represent what the sources say or use unreliable sources.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, horrendous violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing more than a minor incident that the article blows out of all proportion. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added some prose, quotes, and citations, although specifically addressing the fact that some of the sources are not the most reliable. The incident occurred before the Internet. My point is that, with a few minute's research on a Saturday morning, it is possible to find many references to this incident, showing that it has some notability. If this is deleted, I will go along with community consensus. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody doubts that this made the news and was the fodder for the late night comedians... they will jump on anything and everything a president says/does. But what we have not seen is anything indicating that this incident amount to more than a faux pas. None of the sources that were used to show that "to do the Bush" are reliable and even if they were, none of them provide any depth to the coverage. Eg with the exception of the immediate aftermath, when it was news, none of the coverage is about this incident.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As somebody pointed out above this article has more than thousand words. As others pointed out above there may be widespread reference to the incident, in more or less reliable sources, but virtually all of them in form of mere sentences referring to the event, some reaction in the USA, or in Japan or another particular aspect. Nowhere I see an attempt for an comprehensive in-depth analysis of the event, its causes, its impact. Except for this article here in Wikipedia. But our articles should not simply add-up existing bits and pieces to create something for which there isn't equally substantive published collateral. So delete. No need to merge either as this discussion provides sufficient input for any discussion of the event considering due weight in other articles.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd say its more notable than the George W. Bush pretzel incident, which I also recommended for keep. Is the debate really about whether this incident should be noted on wikipedia (surely it should), or whether its noted in own article or somewhere else? U.S. Presidents now generate so much material that its natural they have multiple articles, its just a matter of what goes where. --Milowent (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an argument for merge, but as pointed out above, the incident is already mentioned in the article on Bush. So it does exist on WP, the question is does this merit a stand alone article? Based upon the sources provided as of last night, I'd say no.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps Merge a sentence or two. Balloonman's analysis of the sources is telling. PhGustaf (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very notable incident that was covered very substantially in reliable independent sources and remains significant and relevant in popular culture where it is has been discussed and satirized or years. It also has very substantial and significant linguistic import. There is no possible way the encyclopedia is improve by deleting it. A merge, maybe. But why? Need I remind everyone that every Olympic athlete and professional athlete is considered inherently notable? This is so far and away more important, interesting and informative than those articles that it's not even in the same galaxy for comparison. Not every article has to be on an "important" and "serious" subject. They just have to be on notable subjects, which this clearly is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Can adequately be covered as a paragraph in GHWB's article.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are mostly jocular or pot-shots; while this was a high-profile incident at the time, there was no resultant suffering in diplomatic relations with Japan, there was no bigger story regarding Bush's illness, and just because reliable sources need to fill 24 hours a day, or hundreds of pages each week or even each day, and people jump on a bandwagon for awhile trying to synthesize some sort of storyline, doesn't mean there is encyclopedic value to these mundane efforts. Literally a sentence in the man's presidency article is all this story justifies. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush pretzel incident, people vomit when they have a virus; they generally don't vomit at the dinner table or on heads of state, but then, most other people are free to decline a dinner invitation when they're ill. Presidents are human; certain episodes in life are unwinnable and unspinnable; yet without even that as context, sourcing joke after joke at someone's expense serves what encyclopedic purpose? If the pounding the press gave him over this contributed to an image that ultimately lost him the presidency, that could rate a mention, say in a "Public Image of" section or article, but as its own incident, this is pretty much a one-note affair, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Attempts to link it to other presidential incidents seem gratuitous, and hopefully not the point. I'm not awed by the office, but neither do I allow healthy skepticism to turn into a vendetta against it. There are so many tough issues that presidents have to make a choice about, and history shows some of their decisions to be poor. Let's have some articles on those and serve the readership with real studies of issues and events. We need to maintain certain thresholds for what an encyclopedia shines a spotlight on by giving something its own article, and whether there are two reliable sources or two hundred, this article is neither encyclopedically notable nor useful. Abrazame (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reams of possible sourcing. Notable and memorable incident. See comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush pretzel incident for a little more elaboration. Protonk (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- I wouldn't object to merging this, the GWB pretzel incident, the GWB shoe-throwing incident, and the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident into an article called "Presidential gaffes", but I suspect that would violate NOR. If WP had an article on the foreign relations of GHWB, perhaps it could go there. But I don't think it would merge well into the GHWB article, which is necessarily a 30,000-foot view. jdb (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See, that's the thing about this sort of story, people abandon their faculties of reason and simply believe popular consensus or what they are being told by the media. Gaffe is defined as "1 : a social or diplomatic blunder 2 : a noticeable mistake"; Blunder is defined as "1 : to move unsteadily or confusedly 2 : to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness; 1 : to utter stupidly, confusedly, or thoughtlessly 2 : to make a stupid, careless, or thoughtless mistake". Jimmy Carter diverting a hissing swamp animal that's making a beeline for his boat with a few splashes of his oar is neither a gaffe nor a blunder, it's common sense. George W. Bush choking on a pretzel is, while in the broadest sense a mistake, certainly not a gaffe either, it's choking on a pretzel, losing consciousness and falling on the floor. And what part of the GWB shoe-throwing incident is a gaffe or blunder? From the perspective of the shoe-thrower, he was making an emotional and culturally potent political statement about Bush's handling of the Iraq war and occupation and the deaths of thousands over the course of over half a decade; from the perspective of Bush's handling of the war and occupation, it's bizarre understatement to call it a mere gaffe or blunder. This is the only one of the four that cost lives and cost money (taxpayer-paid medical attention for the Bushes notwithstanding). The only one of these four things that could accurately be described as a gaffe is George H.W. Bush vomiting in the Japanese Prime Minister's lap at a state dinner. Ironically it seems these disparate kinds of stories are grouped together through some sort of political correctness that says "I'm not trying to pick on this one individual," or perhaps even a political incorrectness that says "I'm trying to pick on all presidents equally," but—and I mean no offense to editors here—I'll court further irony by saying that if it's worth taking the time to cast a vote over, it's worth considering what exactly to call what you're voting for. "Odd stories of vastly different import that the press, late-night comics and partisan pundits spin into something to mock the president over" is really all these four have in common. Abrazame (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Protonk. --John (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Also, it is an interesting and noteworthy example and should be expanded to include an analysis and commentary from secondary sources on the White House Medical Unit in action responding to a notable medical patient. Cirt (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SS. If something like this happened to a less prominent person, and yet for some reason received extensive coverage, it would be worth including in the bio article. Here, the problem with merging is that the bio of a U.S. President has so many more important things to cover, that information that would make the cut in another bio gets crowded out here. The way for us to provide more detailed information while keeping the main article at a reasonable length is to use daughter articles. The alternatives are merge (probably too much weight in the Bush bio) or delete completely (loses verifiable information about a well-publicized event that future readers might want to know about). Keeping this article is a better solution than either of those. JamesMLane t c 02:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and late Keep This was something more than just vomiting, since President Bush had collapsed during the summit, and the HLN network almost reported that he had died [37]. Not quite as silly a topic as it might seem seventeen years later. Mandsford (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This was a major international incident. It's hilarious now, but it wasn't at the time, and it's had a nontrivial effect on diplomatic protocol. Ray^Talk 16:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cicero tells us of the vomiting of notable Roman leaders like Caesar and Antony. Why should we do less? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adin Džafić[edit]

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

~~Appears to be non-notable as he doesn't play in a professional league~~ Spiderone 16:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 16:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - new evidence from Jogurney shows he meets WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played two seasons in the fully-pro Croatian Prva HNL and is something of a wunderkind. Please check sites like www.1hnl.net in the future before nominating players from Croatia or Bosnia for deletion. Jogurney (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines Chzz ► 18:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - my foreign language skills are very limited, but I was able to quickly find two local references on this player. He easily passes WP:ATHLETE, and I have to believe he would pass WP:GNG if an editor with Serbo-Croatian-Bosnian language skills comes along. Jogurney (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ATHLETE as he has played at a fully-professional level of football in Croatia. --Jimbo^[online] 19:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in notable European leagues Eldumpo (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per evidence of notability added. GauchoDude (talk) 23:58, 23 September 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) 04:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Min-Ho[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 15:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 15:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to the K-League's official site, Jin has never appeared in a K-League match. Jogurney (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. GauchoDude (talk) 23:57, 23 September 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) 04:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Miles[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:ATH, possible WP:COI issue. Click23 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to indicate he passes WP:BIO. --aktsu ^(t / c) 10:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N badly. Mention of WP:COI therefore brings up the likelihood of a WP:VAIN violation as well. Get Dumb 01:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Get Dumb. No attempt to establish notability. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 23:49, 23 September 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) 04:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Community in Pittsburgh, PA[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, reason was: This article is a tautology, not even up to the level of a dictionary definition, followed by some WP:Redlinks. It says nothing about the Turkish community in Pittsburgh. The article can easily be created when someone has information to post about that community. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probable delete See my exchange with the author . —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merely a list of Turkish organizations within Pittsburgh, and currently has only one entry, not notable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge, although these groups should get a mention in Turkish American. This seems to be a vehicle for organizations in the Pittsburgh area, rather than about a community. Theoretically, we could make millions of intersectional articles about "X community in Y locality", since there is ethnic diversity the world over. I tend to favor limiting it to a national level, so that we don't get into the argument about, "if the Polish community in Detroit gets an article, why can't the German community there get an article as well". Mandsford (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Present content for such an article sets a dangerous precedent, as Mandsford described - we could have a million useless, uninformative stubs on X ethnic group in Y place. Sometimes such stubs can serve to suggest development to others, but I don't see that in this case; instead, if an appropriate article can be written (with suitably sourced content) that would be great, but for now, there is nothing here. I cannot see WP:RS to support an article on this topic, therefore it fails notability. Chzz ► 19:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. This sets up an even scarier precedent than "Bilateral relations of nation X and nation Y" since tens of thousands of cities have hundreds of different ethnicities contained therein, leading to literally millions of potential nonnotable stub articles like this. Edison (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we want to have a hundred articles for each medium sized city, on the Chinese, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Vietnamese, Sudanese (etc.) communities in each. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animal Boy. At present, not sufficient for a separate article. Maybe some later time. Tone 18:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Kills (The Ramones song)[edit]

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

Per WP:NSONG Click23 (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animal Boy. The entire text is at both pages. Never nominated for an award. Checked Allmusic to see if anyone covered it and it doesn't look like it (hard to tell because there are other songs with the same title). Good tune, extremely notable band, unfortunately doesn't warrent its own page. Considering that the album's page is still a stub I would encourage anyone who attempts to 'beef up' this page focus their attention on Animal Boy. J04n(talk page) 15:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that this specific song has independent notability, based upon a bit of googling. I appreciate that the album article needs improvement, but that shouldn't be a concern here. Obviously, the current content is nothing, but again not relevent; a good article about this song could be written, so - if it can be sourced as a decent stub fairly easily (which I believe it can), why not keep it. WP:GNG beats WP:NSONG. I see this as a significant track in the evolution of punk music, with enough factual information to create an article (the Sex Pistols movie "Sid and Nancy" was originally to be called "Love Kills", cover versions by other notable bands (inc Freddie Mercury), written by Joe Strummer) - I'd love to read a good article on this notable song. Chzz ► 20:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Joe Strummer song, which is from Sid and Nancy, is a different song, see here. The Freddie Mercury song came out in 1984, the Ramones song came out in 1986, so obviously they are different songs also. J04n(talk page) 21:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From WP:SONG "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Click23 (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animal Boy. Doesn't appear to have charted or been covered. Allmusic lists a number of songs by this title, but all have different composers, so don't appear to be covers of this song. If multiple reliable sources are added I'll reconsider, but barring that redirecting to the album is appropriate under WP:NSONGS. Rlendog (talk) 15:42, 22 September 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) 04:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transmog[edit]

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

Minor fictional gadget. No secondary sources, no explanation of relevance. Fails WP:FICT and the primary notability guideline. Huon (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked, and I cannot find any places where the term has been used in any other significant books or scholarly work, so I feel that it fails WP:GNG Chzz ► 20:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely trivial plot element. Obviously not covered in any detail by secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources, decorations, coverage. They prevail in this case. Tone 18:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Pattison (RAF officer)[edit]

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

A relatively junior officer (a major in non-RAF terms). Decorated, but no more than many others (the DSO, DFC combination was pretty common among RAF pilots - had he received a bar to the DSO then I would consider he might be notable enough, as that was relatively unusual). One of the last New Zealand veterans of the Battle of Britain, but apparently not the last. An admirable man, but I'm afraid I really can't see what makes him any more notable than any other WWII fighter pilot. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ One of many brave veterans of the Second World War, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude, but that has no bearing on whether there should be a separate Wikipedia article about him. Unfortunately, I don't see that this article would qualify under the exceptions to the general rules of notability. However, I hope that he can be referred to in the article New Zealand in World War II in some fashion. Mandsford (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet the requirements of WP:BIO, lacks significant coverage (per WP:GNG) Chzz ► 20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thank God for men like him, but Wikipedia is not a memorial or a directory of everyone who fought in a war. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Excuse me, this was a major hero of the Battle of Britain. Much on him in Google if you include Battle of Britain as a search term. Let's hold on and see if this article can be improved. We have articles on every little video game and not on a giant like this?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two sources, both are reliable, and there are citations for both sources,if you google him, you will find more sources. 74.249.149.228 (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just because he has an obituary in a newspaper does not make him notable. Yes, there is material about him on the internet, but nothing that suggests he was any more notable than any other Battle of Britain pilot or RAF squadron commander, of which there were thousands. I am in no way dismissing this man's actions (my own father commanded a Spitfire squadron in the Battle of Britain and was decorated for it), but we need more than this to justify an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As these veterans get older and fewer in number, the surviving ones will be more notable as they pass on. This gent was one of the last surviving New Zealand vets of the Battle of Britain. See [38]. The significance of this is obvious from the attention it is getting. Yes, had he passed away fifty years ago it would have been different. Notability in this instance is simply a reflection of current reality and not a slur against those that passed previously, unrecognized. There will be a time when simply being a Normandy invasion veteran is notable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Had he been the last surviving New Zealand veteran of the Battle of Britain I would agree with you, but it appears that he isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there are very few Battle of Britain veterans of any nationality. Let's see what I can find on that.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I count 116 survivors here.[39]. Not clear how many were from New Zealand. I'll admit this does not bolster my argument.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to List of RAF aircrew in the Battle of Britain and counted 85 New Zealand aircrew in the Battle of Britain, of which eight survive. That's a fairly low number, though not as low as I thought. My vote is still keep. ~~maybe a bit weaker but not much.~~--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)(striking out part of comment because of Legion of Honor as noted below)--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Keep -- this man was a hero, and as Johnny pointed out, there's a lot of info on him out there that we could put in the article to improve it. A nation must know its heroes. FWiW 98.234.126.251 (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is where tough choices have to be made. It would be impractical for any online encyclopedia to allow an article for every person who did something heroic in his or her lifetime. For better or for worse, Wikipedia measures a person's entitlement to an article by notability which depends on the cold question of whether that person received significant coverage from multiple verifiable sources. There are persons who arguably "deserve" to have their own article and won't get one; there are loathsome sons of bitches, like Lee Harvey Oswald, who perhaps "don't deserve" to have an article, and yet they do. And yet, those are the rules that Wikipedia operates under, and heroism has nothing to do with it. That said, there is evidence that Pattison did receive coverage in books written in New Zealand about that nation's participation in the Second World War, in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, "battle+of+britain"+"new+zealand"+"pattison"&btnG=Search+Books. How much, I can't tell from a snippet view. Notability as we define it may be proven, but let's not get into the argument that all heroes should have an article. That's not how Wikipedia works. Mandsford (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is also a recipient of the Legion d'Honneur, France's highest honor.[40], which was personally bestowed upon him by Jacques Chirac in 2004. That's in the article, buried in the infobox.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based upon personal recognition by the President of France (as JohnnyB pointed out), as well as notability based on mention in reliable and verifiable sources. Again, heroism and Wikipedia notability are two separate concepts. Mandsford (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The Congressional Medal of Honor is the USA's highest award. All winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor are considered notable. The Victoria Cross is the UK's highest award. And all winners of the Victoria Cross are considered notable. I believe it has been recognized that all winners of their nations' highghest award are notable. I suggest that when that highest award is given to a foreigner the receipient is doubly notable. Geo Swan (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as foreign recipient of Légion d'honneur. There are potentially over 100,000 recipients of this order, and I do not think all of them necessarily should have Wikipedia articles. Perhaps those who have the "Commander" order or higher should do so without question. I do not know what order Pattison has, but as Geo Swan says immediately above, giving an award to a foreigner makes it more notable. I have some conflict of interest here: my uncle was a Spitfire pilot killed over France just over 65 years ago, so I am perhaps not entirely neutral on the subject.-gadfium 20:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has received enough news coverage to meet WP:GNG: stuff, NZ Herald, TVNZ, TV3. XLerate (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry, but it is totally inaccurate to say that the Légion d'honneur is France's highest honour. There are five degrees of the honour, and the lowest are pretty common. In no way is this award equivalent to the VC or the Medal of Honor - it is not even primarily an award for bravery, but one for merit (its closest British equivalent would probably be the Order of the British Empire). Many foreigners have been awarded them (20,000 foreigners were awarded it in WWI; according to the quoted article, 300 were awarded to foreign WWII veterans by Jacques Chirac alone). As to being a hero, yes, he was. So were many other people. Is everybody awarded the DSO eligible for an article on Wikipedia? 870 were awarded to the RAF alone in WWII. Everybody who was awarded the DFC? That's 20,354 in WWII! A large percentage of DSO winners also won the DFC. Come on, this is just not feasible. We have to draw a line somewhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an inclusionist, I'd like to point out that this is completely "feasible". Wikipedia is not paper. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 20:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp, if it is inaccurate to say "France's highest honor," then what should we say? It reads that way in the article now, so I think the point should be addressed. I used that phrase because the source did.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep far more notable than an episode of the Simpsons (and they all have articles). MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have shown he meets the basic criteria of WP:BIO being the subject of published and reliable secondary source material, and he meets the additional criteria of WP:ANYBIO having received a notable award or honor. Furthermore, while it may be true that he didn't especially stand out amongst his fellow BoB pilots, this was because many of his colleagues were remarkable also, not because he was unremarkable.--Kiwipat (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of honours, let me lay out my stance. I have written many biographies of people who have received British honours. My criteria for "automatic" inclusion have always been the following:

Anyone who has received a peerage, baronetcy, knighthood or damehood.
Anyone who has received the OM, CH, CB or CSI.
Most people who have received the CMG, CIE, CVO or CBE (although in the earlier days of these awards they were given more freely and not every recipient may be that notable).
Anyone who has received the VC or GC.
Anyone who has received the DSO, CGC, DCM, CGM or GM (second-level awards) or any combination twice or more.
Anyone who has received the DSC, MC, DFC, AFC, DSM, MM, DFM, AFM or QGM (third level awards) or any combination of these and/or second-level awards three times or more.

I believe this is realistic. We have to draw the line somewhere. It seems to me that Pattison is getting attention largely because he was a New Zealander and New Zealand has a smallish population and therefore fewer veterans. I suspect that if somebody wrote an article about a British pilot with identical decorations and experience then most people on AfD would be opining "delete". Kiwipat says he has a notable award or honour. Which one? The one that was awarded to nearly 900 of his fellow RAF officers, the one that was awarded to over 20,000 of them, or the one that can be held by over 100,000 people at any one time? Trevor MacInnis apparently says that it is feasible to write articles about everybody who gets a decoration ever. I'd like to see that go to a wider discussion! Technically feasible, maybe. Desirable, unlikely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Clarify The notable award or honor I especially had in mind was the Légion d'honneur. To quote its Wikipedia article "The Order is the highest decoration in France". Also , just because a lot of people have it, does not mean it is not notable. Indeed if the consensus is that the Légion d'honneur is not notable we should delete its article.--Kiwipat (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What rubbish! Of course it's notable. Just like the Order of the British Empire is notable. But that doesn't mean everyone who receives the lowest levels of either order is notable (that's several hundred thousand people). The Légion d'Honneur, like the British orders, is notable at its higher levels, but not so much at its lower. These honours can be awarded for long and valuable service as a gardener or traffic warden! Admirable and useful maybe, but hardly worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Receipt of the lower levels of either order in no way qualifies a person for inclusion on Wikipedia; receipt of the higher levels does. Here's a recent example of an AfD debate which decided that someone with the MBE (equivalent to the lowest level of the Légion d'honneur) didn't automatically qualify for inclusion and a notability debate on the same subject. I think Kiwipat's comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how orders of chivalry and knighthood work, which is probably largely why Pattison got so much attention in New Zealand in the first place and why so many people are voting to keep here. The highest level of the Légion is indeed France's highest honour; the lowest level is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on balance (Keep If it becomes the task of Wikipedia to hold articles on EVERY person who took part in the Second World War (including my Mother and Father who both served in the RAF)). Otherwise DELETE. If the Kiwis want to start a NZ.Wikipedia then they can put what they like in it!!!!Petebutt (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, that's not entirely fair. I'm not from New Zealand. Besides, we're reaching the point at which just being present at certain WWII battles may indeed be notable enough to warrant inclusion. This is why I changed the lead of this article to state that Pattison is one of the few survivors from NZ of this particular battle. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:55, 23 September 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. Weak delete is still a delete. Maybe later, if more sources appear, this can be recreated but a consensus is clear at the moment. Tone 18:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Page[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the level of the pertinent notability guidelines. Let the article speak for itself: "Sara Page did not leave any long-lasting impression or significant artistic legacy. Today she is practically forgotten. Her works remained unsold in her studio for years. The present location of most of them is unknown." —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability established. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The collective and exhibited works move her into the realms of WP:ARTIST notability. The article is well referenced and is derived from sound academic research. The relative obscurity of the subject is surely a good reason for Wikipedia to include an article about her. Lame Name (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia requires that articles' topics be notable already. Articles aren't supposed to be written for the purpose of creating notability. Therefore, if someone is "obscure", then by definition there shouldn't be an article about that person. As far as the references are concerned, they certainly take care of the need for verifiability, but it isn't clear that any of these is a published document as opposed to an internal record or catalog related to routine business and inventory. My name's on lots of lists and I've written lots of letters too! —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You missed two sources. They were bare, numbered, external hyperlinks when you nominated the article for deletion, so that oversight is nearly excusable. ☺ But Lame Name has made them more apparent, now, and they were certainly apparent in the version of the article as it stood when you wrote that comment that you have just written. Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly, Lame Name, the criteria for inclusion is that the information can be verified. If there are insufficient reliable sources for the reader to check the facts, then we cannot present a verifiable article, as explained in the general notability guidelines Chzz ► 20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the two biographical sources (Baird and Penn) that are cited in the article, and were when you wrote that?
  The provenance of the Baird source is laid out below. Joanne Penn was "Postive Action Trainee in Audience Development" (whatever that is) at Wolverhampton Art Gallery, and there's information on the web log here about who performed the editorial oversight of its content. Personally, whilst I am willing to accept that an art gallery curator writing on art history is someone writing in xyr field, I'm far less inclined to accept (as reliable) sources written by a "Postive Action Trainee in Audience Development" and edited and fact checked by a "Participation Officer" who is "knowledgeable in the field of social media" but not necessarily in the field of art history, and who obviously didn't do much checking of the "about" page (since it mis-spells "contributor" as "contributer" right in the very sentence saying who checked the correctness of the WWW site). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Unless donating ones paintings to the Wolverhampton Art Gallery satisfies some easy criterion of WP:N. I don't see that being a little-noted and long forgotten artist qualifies her for an encyclopedia article. Lots of (almost all?) artists have painted live models and have "attempted to reach technical perfection" though Page, Picasso, Pollock or Cousin Helen might have different ideas of "technical perfection." Does the gallery to which she donated the paintings still exhibit them, and what do they say about them? Note: Google Book has some apparent coverage, not viewable online: "Art" 1936:"Among the more important recent gifts are oil paintings by Sara Page,..", "Art," 1939:"Among gifts are oil paintings by Sara Page.." and "Exhibition of the Royal Academy: catalogue, Volumes 125-128 (undated)" which mentions "Sara Page" paintings "Miss Ellen Page," "Miss Elsie Page" and "Harmony in blue.", "La Chronique des arts et de la curiosité‎ (1912)- Page 66: "..les miniatures de M--' Sara Page... The snippets do not show whether the coverage was significant, but they might weigh toward notability. Is it the same Sara Page in each case? Someone in England might be able to search in the library of the Royl Academy, but I could find nothing at their site about Page. Nor could I find anything at the Wolverhampton Art Museum site. Others are welcome to try. The nice article by Olga Baird, appended to the article as a reference, which has copies of several paintings and some bio details, does not appear to have been published. Is that correct? Edison (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Olga Baird is Curator of The Victorian Galleries at the Wolverhampton Art Gallery. It's not apparent what fact checking and peer review processes went into the publication on the Wolverhampton History & Heritage WWW site, but the fact that this person is a curator does strongly indicate that this person is at the very least a paid professional, even if not a qualified expert, and an article on art history by xem is xem writing in xyr field.
  An interesting note on the timing and authorship here: Olga Baird is scheduled to give a lecture on Sara Page some four days from now, and it is fairly apparent who Olgabaird (talk · contribs), the creator of this article, is. Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That explains the article. And though I haven't said so before, I think it's a perfectly good article, very detailed. But if Sara Page isn't already notable, and Olga Baird's interest is in inculcating in others the enthusiasm she has for Sara Page, or even simply to document what information she has at hand for an artist whose works she happens to have in her hands, then Wikipedia it isn't a proper place to do that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probable Delete. Sadly, I can't see anything that makes Sara Page any more notable than any old run-of-the-mill artist today. The sources cited appear to be reliable, but the coverage appears to be either incidental or coverage that includes every single artist/person of the period. (The bit on Wolverhampton City Council's webpage is better, but we'd need more than that.) Obviously I haven't seen the books so I can only speculate about the coverage. Feel free to show me any comprehensive coverage I've missed. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 16:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Yeoman[edit]

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

Declining prod because there is an attempt to assert notability, being an Independent Spirit Award for Best Cinematography winner. I think this is enough to make it not "uncontestably deletable", hence me sending it here instead. As an admin I'm relitively new in these areas so let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject of the article passes WP:CREATIVE — the specialized notability guideline that, among others, applies to "filmmakers", "photographers" and "other creative professionals". The third criterion of CREATIVE requests that the subject "has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work..." and this subject passes this threshold by virtue of his involvement in creating the film Drugstore Cowboy for which he was awarded a major filmmaking award, the Independent Spirit Award for Best Cinematography. The subject has also played a major role in creating several notable films written and directed by Wes Anderson which attributes to him a notable "collective body of work" as per CREATIVE, again. To answer the nominating editor's implied question, I think you absolutely did exactly what you're supposed to do in terms of benefit to the project. By declining the PROD and bringing this article to discussion, hopefully the debate will bring about a further expansion of the article as the subject is easily encyclopedic. Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that this person has enough coverage in news articles, coupled with the mentions in books regarding movies, to confer notability. Chzz ► 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rambo's Revenge, asking for community input when unsure is absolutely the right thing to do; great that you erred on the side of caution. Keep up the good work. Chzz ► 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, has photographed major films such as the Royal Tennenbaums. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Redirection or disambiguation can be discussed outside AFD. MuZemike 19:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World domination[edit]

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

This article has had a request for sources for a year and non have been provided. At the moment the article is OR. If all the text that has not sources was deleted the article would contain almost no text. The title encourages speculation of the sort seen in James Bond plots or in the actions of characters like Ming the Merciless. I suggest that the article is deleted and the dab page World domination (disambiguation) is moved here or this page is made a redirect. I think the former is better that the latter, or someone might be tempted to remove the redirect by restoring the sourced article. PBS (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hegemony, an encyclopedic topic (at least potentially -- it also has problems), and merge whatever might be useful there; if not, follow PBS's suggestion and move the disambiguation page to it. There really is a Ming the Merciless/James-Bond-villain taste to the title (an unencyclopedic tone), but the problem goes beyond that. A more accurate title would be something like List of major historic hegemonic powers and states that almost became major historic hegemonic powers. That's what this article is about, and its an OR mashup that includes flash-in-the-pan wannabes like Hitler and Napoleon along with big old civilizations. The idea that ancient civilizations thought they dominated the world is hyperbole, not history. For instance, at the height of the Roman Empire's expansion they knew their silk and spices were coming from places they could never hope to control. They also knew Alexander the Great had conquered as far as the Indus before his own army told him they didn't want to go further, and the Roman army couldn't even hold Mesopotamia. Probably no ancient empire was so ignorant as to think they dominated the whole "world", no matter what Toynbee said. It might be possible to source something like List of hegemonic states. (But since the "world domination" bit doesn't work for this, how do you keep the list from expanding to include every dominant local tribe?) Another list might be created, something along the lines of List of states aspiring to world domination -- if some kind of limit could be set on the first group, you could find enough sourcing to keep both lists from falling into WP:OR. It's certainly worth studying and somehow listing hegemonic powers. But this page isn't an encyclopedic way to do it. -- Noroton (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While PBS should read WP:DEADLINE to know that articles should not be deleted based on the lack of sources, nor information necessarily removed (Except in bios), this article is a breeding ground for vandalism. The content should be moved to an appropriate article that suits the subject, which is not World Domination per say, but rulers who wished to conquer the world, or attempted to lead a crusade that was not against a specific enemy, but rather against all (Genghis Khan for example). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a request has been made, a year is more than enough time for some sources to be provided. "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:PROVEIT a policy and not an essay). And because I copied it across many moths ago the same sentence is also in WP:OR. If in the future someone finds a book or books that goes into detail about this subject then a new article can always be recreated with one or more reliable sources. --PBS (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which just goes to show you haven't read WP:DEADLINE, because there is no place in guideline, essay, or policy that makes use of this one year figure you've decided upon. The concept of world domination is certainly notable enough to warrant an article, the article is just poorly written as it stands (And should be semi-protected since everyone and their brother owns the world). The purpose of wikipedia is to improve, not to sweep everything that doesn't meet some arbitrary quality control deadline underneath the carpet.
"There is no publication date and Wikipedia does not have to be finished today. It merely needs to have improved on yesterday." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why an article can not be recreated if it is properly sourced. You have made several edits to the article in the last year, but have not see fit to fix the problems of WP:SYN or sources. A year is more than enough time for editors to find sources for articles such as these. --PBS (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted vandalism two or three times in the past two weeks, but I have not edited the article in any significant manner. No, one year is not the arbitrary deadline. While I feel this should be deleted for other reasons, I would normally contest the attitude you have over the deletion of articles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Noroton (talk · contribs). Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep World domination is a notable concept. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, nor a deadline issue, are not reasons to delete. I do not favor a redirect, as hegemony is a much more political-science style concept, whereas world domination is a popular culture concept. Ray^Talk 01:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources on the subject? If not then why not support the deletion of the article until such time as reliable sources are provided? It is unreliable speculative pieces such as this, with no supporting reliable sources that brings discredit to this project. --PBS (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PBS, are you seriously suggesting that there are no reliable sources which discuss world domination? Ray^Talk 19:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with dab page then add an entry to point to Hegemony. Possibly merge material and subpage the history into Hegemony. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems counterfactual. The article has sources and there don't seem to be any specific requests for more. The claims of OR seem fanciful and are unsupported. As for books, there are hundreds of them on the subject. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article has sources, it does not mean that they are relevant to the concept. For example take the section French Empire it does not say anything about world domination other than one quote, the rest is editorial conjunction, and synthesis. Or take the Nazi Germany section the very first sentence contradicts the concept of World domination. The whole section relies on Mein Kampf#The Sequel an unpublished book, and the section reads like a fictional plot in a Counterfactual history. -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable concept. Not a great article yet, but things can only get better. Consider WP:POTENTIAL. • Anakin ^(talk) 15:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with dab page as per 76.66.196.139, adding entry point for Hegemony and New World Order (conspiracy theory). Merge any useful information (I don't think there is much) into Hegemony, global empire, and A_Study_of_History#Universal_State. The current article is a confused mishmash of concepts from those three articles.--Work permit (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the concept of world domination is itself notable. A look at Google News brings up plenty of sources with nations and politicians accusing each other of seeking out "world domination." I think if the article was shifted to present this information and anything else that may be gained from other reliable sources, then this article would be worth saving. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any sources that would not fall under the Hegemony article and/or its sister articles such as Cultural hegemony, Monetary hegemony, Regional hegemony? Most seem to fall under these articles. Those that don't, such as Dance Music's RuPaul: Poised for `World Domination' or Barbie's Secret Plan For World Domination are pretty far afield from the current article--Work permit (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & DAB. This article is mostly "Original Research." Used in a quasi-political sense, it's simply a pejorative, rooted in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the thesis of which is that the Jews aim to take over the world (whatever that means), so this is also an expression in a conspiracy theory. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a real concept, but mainly found in fiction and conspiracy theories not real life. There should be an article on it but there are no sources that discuss the topic as a whole, rather than individual cases. When a book is written entitled "World Domination in Fact and Fiction" then the WP article can and should appear. (BTW the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a hoax originally written about the Napoleonists and later changed to be about the Jews. It claims they want to take over Europe, but not the whole world.) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. The sad thing is when the article is gone the wikicartoon File:Domination wikiworld.png will have no home. :-( Steve Dufour (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I'm very reluctant to delete hoaxes as speedy, but this is one where it seems totally appropriate DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Business Academy[edit]

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

Unnotable establishment - no relevant Google hits. Candidate for speedy but deletion templates are repeatedly being removed Rcawsey (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that the subject seems to be non-notable. Absolutely no external reliable sources mentioning the academy provided (or more found), the text reads as an advert and the website is "under construction", although they apologize for the "unconvenience". (Quite how the picture of professors of Brigham Young University is relevant to the article escapes me, as does the collective noun for professors). Honestly, I think this article falls into more than one speedy deletion category. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I took the step of nominating the article for speedy deletion. Apart from the article being (I think) unsalvagable, there is also the issue that it links the institution with various living people, although the only ghits I can find that link these people to the institution is the article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything to indicate that it exists Chzz ► 21:08, 18 September 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. This is a textbook case of WP:NOTAVOTE. Naturally, I all but discounted the votes from SPAs that were clearly canvassed via off-wiki forums. The arguments provided by these users are almost entirely non-existent or exceptionally weak in nature, especially those that do nothing but accuse others of "deletionism". That said, there are some valid keep votes, but these aren't very persuasive, either. Many could be classified as WP:ITSNOTABLE, where there is no explanation as to why the subject is notable, but rather a hollow claim that it is. On the other hand, the arguments for deletion, while few, are backed up by relevant policies and guidelines. Without coverege in secondary, reliable sources, we cannot include an article on this forum, regardless of its popularity amongst members. I can therefore conclude that the appropriate course of action is to delete this page in accordance with consensus here and notability guidelines. Just as a note, I did close the previous discussion, but only from a procedural point of view; therefore I believe I am neutral enough to review this AfD. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CyanogenMod[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

I see little to no coverage in external reliable sources. The previous AfD was closed early after a sockflood, but that has never been a reason to keep an unworthy article.Of the existing links on the page, one has nothing to do with the firmware, the second is a how-to blog/forum post, and the third is yet another forum. The External Links are also a lovely collection of fora, yet aren't enough to make this article pass the WP:GNG. Let's not reward socking and disruptive behaviour. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (update: or Merge) Since the first deletion attempt the article has improved and become more encyclopedic (as opposed to a feature list). Others will argue about notability and citations below, while not strong it is not some 'lone wolf' project, and has a respectable number of both contributors and audience. While the project is ongoing there is no good reason to delete, or to attempt to delete. I strongly suspect the proposers of these deletion attempt are motivated more by technical elitism and a fanboi motivated desire to bury the 'competition' than any real desire to improve Wikipedia. EasyTarget (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I came across this article when going through the log of AfD's for the 11 September, where I happened to notice this AfD flooded with single purpose accounts and a no consensus closure. With my curiosity piqued, I looked over this article and did not find any mentions in reliable sources. How great this may or may not be is irrelevant to its notability; but it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As an aside note, the fanboi rhetoric is particularly inaccurate - as anyone who has talked to me before will attest, I certainly not a technical elite. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fanboy and elitist comments were not directed at you per say, but rather at the attitude displayed by a few here when they come across anything that they do not think is notable, or interferes in their comfy world order.. one of 'Oh quick, we have to delete this now before it becomes popular or properly cited'. A belief that is illustrated at the speed of the original AFD and way it was closed because the proposer was not immediately getting their way. Lack of notability is always cited as a reason to delete pages on new projects and I can't be bothered with the circular debates it causes. I'd rather leave an article and then delete it in six months if the article and project really has gone nowhere. I will always default to having too much info in Wikipedia over having too little.
  - The 'Oh noes! people are canvassing outside wikipedia' argument is facile, those users have accounts and are entitled to contribute to AFD's irrespective of how they heard about this, those users took the time to add their votes and arguments and then were effectively dismissed. If the argument for deletion was so strong, why close the debate before others could also come in on the 'for' side? The AFD appears to have been closed for tactical reasons, nothing else.
  - Having said that, this is still a relatively minor project.. so I think merging to either a separate Android Mods page, or merging into the Android main article is also acceptable, and does indeed match how some other mods are handled. I'd also support either of them and have updated the above accordingly. EasyTarget (talk)
Delete or merge if anything is necessary. Mods are rarely given their own page as they are not notable and are only alterations of something that, if there is notability, would have its own page. No need for a separate page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be saying that were it notable it would have its own page, so its page should be deleted because you believe it not to be notable. This seems terribly circular. HelDC (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was looking for this info and checked wikipedia for it and found it. I don't see why it should be deleted. Akubhai (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent notability Chzz ► 20:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent notability Chzz ► 21:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, that's two for Chzz. Anyway, CyanogenMod is notable as a popular distribution of the Android-based OS, similar to how Ubuntu and Debian are notable distributions of Linux-kernel based OSes. The OS has been much-noted by independent secondary sources ranging from reviews to how-to-pages to news stories to tech blogs to podcasts, including MaximumPC, Androinica, Android And Me, TMO Today, AndroidSPIN, The Hippest Phones, FutureCrue, Phandroid, and others. The community-built and run CyanogenMod.com reports they've had over 100K visitors in less than four weeks. Popularity aside, CyanogenMod is also notable for its much-discussed optimizations, development, and experimentation with new technologies, some of which (BFS for example) have been adopted into the mainline Google Android distribution. The article was proposed to be speedy-deleted back when it was simply a half-assed copy/paste job someone did of the release notes. However, the article is very different now. Not perfect, but a good start and still evolving. EasyTarget is right. There seems to be a kneejerk reaction to pull an article before it has a chance. The campaign to delete this article has tinges of elitism, status quoism, and tech bias, which is somewhat expected given the intense competition between, and fanboiism for, mobile phone platforms. But the key question that needs to be answered is whether this topic is worthy of notice-- and the answer is a resounding "yes". The OS is a popular distribution for a fast-growing platform, and this article is helpful to the interested lay reader. In full disclosure, I am a user of CyanogenMod. However, I am not one of its developers, nor am I affiliated with any of the media mentioned previously that has been covering it-- except as an occasional poster to the xda-developers forum. --Replysixty (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What kind of source would be considered reliable by the deletistas? In spite of its young age, this Android distribution has been covered in a number of places as noted above. It is the most notable distribution of Android that is actually community-driven, rather than carrier-driven. The most documented instance of Android not being just another corporate phone firmware but being an open-source project that empower actual users seems like a worthwhile thing to keep in the records. Beside that, I'd like to see the "Delete" proponents make a cogent argument for it that goes beyond ignoring the many articles covering the topic. 66.68.113.5 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)— 66.68.113.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Many deadtree and electronic publications all reference Cyanogen's mod and recovery image in relation to rooting android (Replysixty links some both virtual and "real", a google search for android cyanogen root returns about 24,300 results, the first 100 unique results all appearing at a cursory examination to be on topic). Cyanogen's recovery image is the default image installed by all of the one click rooting scripts/apps I am aware of (8,850 google hits for android one click root cyanogen). That seems very notable to me, but including this information in the article would for the most part detract from the informational value of the article. So, the article is caught in a catch-22. It's not notable because it doesn't reference enough external links, but if external links are added, I suspect someone would come along and complain the article wasn't encyclopedic enough. HelDC (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC) — HelDC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I frequently typo edit psychology articles, as well as any articles I happen to be reading and see a typo in, but never bother to sign in to do so. I signed in to contribute to the discussion here because it's *gasp* something I think is useful&important. :) HelDC (talk)
Keep Android of course is notable (despite the insinuations that were posted on the discussion page to the contrary). Cyanogen is by far the most popular 3rd-party distribution of the android operating system. It might not be commonly mentioned in the major press, but this isn't surprising since it is fairly technical in nature, and it lacks commercial sponsorship. Apparently major corporations like T-Mobile have taken notice, as they've had to specifically modify their software to remove incompatibilities with 3rd-party firmwares (of which Cyanogenmod is probably the most common). They wouldn't do this if it were something of interest to only a handful of their customers. Considering the open-source license was one of the most significant features of the Android OS, and Cyanogenmod is the natural consequence of such a license, it seems natural to include it on WP. I'd like to additionally point out that Cyanogen really isn't a mod per-se - it is more of a distribution. Typically a mod is some kind of binary patch that is applied to another software product. Cyanogenmod is actually a built-from-sources distribution of the Android OS (with the inclusion of some 3rd-party software as well). Cyanogen is no more a "mod" of Android than Ubuntu is a mod of linux/binutils/bash/GNU/etc. If we were just talking about a patch I could see more of a case for a merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich0 (talk • contribs)
Keep Some of the changes made by Cyanogen have made it into mainline and there's plenty of coverage on tech sites. And frankly, the reason for the first request for deletion was "It's not like this is the iPhone. It's just yet another Apple ripoff like Windows and Linux." I don't understand, why this was even reopened. You don't want to reward disruptive behaviour? When why do you indulge the blatant apple fanboi that requested the deletion in the first place? Also, I'd personally rather not be called as a sockpuppet when I voice my own honest opinion. It's insulting. Make your argument without that, or don't make it at all.

And for your information: The main distribution and development feedback channel for CyanogenMod is a forum, so complaining that that forum is then cited in the article doesn't make much sense. 217.95.124.100 (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)— 217.95.124.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I have still not seen significant coverage in reliable sources. If it is a notable mod, then I would expect to see more coverage than blog posts and forums! Preaching about how good it is out it's notability without giving reasons why is useless, and dismissing this as fanboiism ridiculous. Is there any coverage in a reputable source? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You want the article gone, go ahead and delete it. I won't waste any more time on this. It's pretty clear already, what the "consensus" will be. 217.95.124.100 (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you consider to be a reliable source for something computer related other than computer related magazines, websites, podcasts, etc? HelDC (talk)
Keep Why do you think a single person/author of some reputed website is a "reliable source" and thousand of people on a forum are not. Just look at the number of comments/people on the forum's thread. This OS was covered on CNET, made it to the front page of Digg.com virdi (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't quite see what deems "Significant Coverage in reliable sources, Wikipedia is supposed to be a encyclopedia, based on a website where anyone can see information and add to it as they see relevant, with in reason. Is this going to make it into a IRL encyclopedia? Probably not. Has it had wide coverage across the internet? Quite so. As mentioned before, that it has received coverage on a multitude of sites, most that have been advertised or promoted through the usage of the social site, Digg.com, where a broad number of users can see it. I don't see how, at this point, it differs from any variation of Linux having its own page. The mod certainly fits the build, kernel mods, data optimization, even some of his work is now going to be in android proper with the next release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Systm117 (talk • contribs) — Systm117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep: I don't know if you consider CNET[41][42], Digg[43], Lifehacker[44][45], Hackaday[46], MaximPC[47] and other websites[48][49][50] as reliable sources. I will include these websites in the main article. virdi (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another collection of blogs and blog comments. Was CyanogenMod ever mentioned in a magazine, a newspaper or something similar? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MaximumPC's mention may be on its blog, but it's still a magazine, isn't it? Just curious, 'cause Wikipedia's notion of notability seems to shift. (I.E. For anime/video games, I hardly ever see people demanding newspaper articles, rather than the odd anime blog post, for citation/proof of 'notability'). Mekryd (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers and magazines move at glacial speed. Lifehacker and CNET are not chopped liver. You can't just dismiss them like that, especially when we're talking about a technology related entry like this. This insistence on dead-tree mainstream media is ridiculous.Joshuas88 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Oi, as per above, I'm fairly certain MaximumPC [51] counts as, at least, a semi-reliable source. They've got an article that hasn't been put up for deletion by some random non-user with a Apple fanboy fetish (the original AfD article, not this one =P). I would have helped clean this up, but as you can see, I've not really done much in Wikipedia in a while. Other bits of my life, online and off, have gotten in the way. Mekryd (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This "mod" has been mentioned by many others and is one of the few modifications that offer significant improvements and notoriety because of the enhancements on speed, usability and functionality. This page has much content and will be infinitely more useful to first time visitors looking for resources on how to exact nature of Google's Android mobile operating systems. As other users have mentioned this mod has been featured and/or featured in many notable sources. Peterto (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)— Peterto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: This mod is notable if only because of the attention that it has drawn to BFS. (The current article doesn't mention this, but imho, it should). joeyo (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I vote keep since I've seen this project mentioned so many times while reading about Android. I consider a high number of votes on sites such as reddit.com and digg.com is a sign of notability just as being mentioned in mainstream media is a sign of notability. Todays Digg front pages least voted for article has 666 votes (or as they call it "diggs"). There is a Digg article http://digg.com/mods/Android_G1_CyanogenMod_v4_0_1_Stable_for_G1_myTouch that is about a new version of Cyanogen being released that got 722 votes. I therefore consider this project to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Tommy (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diggs are not and will never be a measure of notability. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about other links in the ref list below. Diggs are a measure of popularity though.
I have removed that. Reflist does not belong in AFDs. Joe Chill (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Canvass page 1 (dead now) and 2. Joe Chill (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wouldn't it make sense to consider that this is inherently a web-related article and would thus primarily be covered by websites and not print sources? Several notable blogs/websites have already been put forth. Cyanogen is not going anywhere and is only going to become more relevant as time goes on.Joshuas88 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that makes sense. Considering this a web related article prominent on different websites (if not so in the print media), it is significant and only going to increase in popularity and coverage on the internet/print media. I leave the rest to the consensus virdi (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus is to delete because all of the keeps don't cite any guideline and go against WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, many of the keeps have been making points aimed at showing independent, secondary-sources, reliable sources, which is the point of contention for this afd, as best as anyone can figure. Those points are based on existing notability guidelines. Putting a link to those known guidelines shouldn't be a condition for those points to be valid or not. Now, the "delete" folks consider apparently those sources to be insufficient. Since they are provably independent and secondary, their only leg to stand is to question how "reliable" they are, I suppose. We now have a friendly admin asking for dead-tree sources, which seems like an unusually strong requirement that hasn't been applied to many other "pure-technology" topics. Still, I'm willing to assume good faith in spite of having been tagged as "single purpose account" which I'm sure has no bearing on other people's assumption of my good faith or blind disregard of my points. So, should we pokemonize this AfD and find a few dozen of wikipedia articles on technological topics that haven't been covered in dead-trees yet are considered noteworthy and sufficiently sourced by online references only, or would our local friendly admin like to refine his noteworthiness criteria? — 66.68.113.5 (talk • contribs) has made few edits outside this topic, yet his points should be taken into account. 66.68.113.5 (talk)
    - Actually, the delete arguments are stronger. ~~All of you canvassers~~ are only posting sources that verify it, but don't show notability and that it's useful. Reliable sources are allowed, but not ones without significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for attempting to better define the thinking behind the "Delete" votes. I'm a little new to this, as has been pointed out, so bear with me here. The meat of the WG:N link everyone is throwing around says "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." I don't see anything about requiring the sources themselves to say "it's notable" or "it's useful". I also don't understand what definition of "significant coverage" you're using that lets you claim it doesn't apply to the sources given here. If you'd like me to summarize those sources for you to make it easier to digest, I'll do so, but I'm hoping it's not necessary. Now, as I understand it, if we can in fact get a fact-based consensus around the documented existence of several independent secondary reliable sources in which CyanogenMod was given significant coverage, that still doesn't guarantee the inclusion criteria, but merely presumes to satisfy it. Again, I would be very interested in hearing of a reasonable argument that would justify a "Delete" vote. Maybe something from WP:NOT? — 66.68.113.5 (talk • contribs) is a handsome fellow who can get quite sensitive about the fact that he has made few edits outside this topic. 66.68.113.5 (talk)
      - Perhaps we canvassers should start then: WP:AGF WP:EQ. Also thanks for deleting the list of references because they don't belong here before claiming that no references are cited, while also ignoring the references that are cited elsewhere. It makes it easier to illustrate your obvious bias without resorting to citing your own user page.217.95.114.56 (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        ~~Canvassers are what all or most of you are. I even posted proof of that. I never said that no references was cited.~~ I said that none of them was significant coverage. The reference do belong here. All that I said that is that reflist doesn't belong here because it is for articles. I hate it when users twist my comments around. Joe Chill (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Funny enough that you complain about websites not being reliable sources, but "proof" your own point using a single tweet. Talk about bias.217.95.114.56 (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        ~~I have that, the previous AFD, and all of the single purpose accounts.~~ I never said that they weren't reliable. I said that they weren't significant coverage. ~~By the way, how did you hear of this AFD?~~ Joe Chill (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Why, I got the link, when I got paid to come here and canvas, how else would I hear of it? It's not as if it was advertised by a giant sign at the top of the article or something.217.95.114.56 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's hard to believe it with all of these single purpose accounts in this AFD and the one before it. It's especially hard to believe when you are an IP that knows a lot about policies. Joe Chill (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If that's your standard of "knowing a lot", you should consider ceasing contributions. 217.95.114.56 (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        ~~You should consider showing what your account is or I'll start a WP:SPI. Joe Chill (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Joe Chill (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
        Now I'm scared. Btw, have you ever read WP:NOASSUMESOCK? It's amazing, what you stumble upon if you actually read the policies, everyone's always talking about.217.95.114.56 (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nice essay. Joe Chill (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "All you canvassers." That's not cool. I am not a single purpose account, and I frankly find your reactions and name-calling however crossed out they may be, to be more silly than any point brought up here. Of course you find the for-deletion arguments more valid than the Keep ones! You made them! If you thought otherwise, you wouldn't have taken that side. I'm still curious as to why Maximum PC doesn't seem count as a reliable source. Mekryd (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I agree. This "all you canvassers" name calling is inappropriate. Certain guidelines regarding assumptions of good faith apply here. Furthermore, there is no need for chapter-and-verse quotes from WP's policy when those policies are being followed. Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who suspect that I am one of "all you canvassers" who apparently reacted in lockstep to a random tweet I never saw... (1) I posted after seeing the gigantic banner on the page, (2) I listed more than half a dozen independent, reliable, secondary-sources to establish notability. Others have provided many additional examples- and no, that's not counting forum posts, diggs, etc. (3) I am not using a "single-purpose" account. As mentioned below, the goal of Wikipedia is to create a summary of all human knowledge. Those who have argued for deletion have cited two criteria-- a lack of notability and a lack of secondary sources. Numerous write ups in the electronic media ranging from reviews to how-tos to news stories to interviews etc have been cited, and both criteria are clearly met. Dead-tree media is an absurd requirement that goes unfulfilled without controversy for comparable articles about modified firmware distributions including Tomato, HyperWRT, Nintendo DS homebrew, Gargoyle Router Firmware, or IPodLinux. The uneven-handed treatment of this article in relation to other similar articles and in opposition to evidence and common sense smacks either of general resistance to the expansion of Wikipedia itself or fanboiism towards particular mobile OSs. And because both noteworthiness and secondary sources are provided, there is little left for some deletionists to discuss except to question the motives of the participants and devalue their opinions. May I remind everyone that contributions to the discussion should be evaluated on merit, not whether someone are posting from an IP or a newly created account. That "single purpose" posters are being devalued by an editor who has had their account for a whole five months is especially revealing. --Replysixty (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think this "discussion" is getting a little off-track and looks more like a debate than a discussion. Remember, we need to assume good faith and work towards agreement. The basic motivation/purpose of Wikipedia is to create a summary of all human knowledge and advancement of free flow of that knowledge. This article may be of great importance and significance to a lot of people (hackers and kernel engineers) and it pose no threat to those who don't consider it important or significant. The world will not cease to exist if the article is not on Wikipedia. If it stays on Wikipedia, nobody's going to get hurt as I was never hurt by an article on Japanese Toilets or any other Unusual Article. So, don't spend all your energies here. There are other important things to do to make this world a better place. We should carry on the discussions, but with good spirits. virdi (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your number of stars makes this a reply to my comment. yay :) Err, I mean I pretty much agree entirely with your points. Sorry if I'm coming across as needlessly argumentative, I'm a n00b who's mostly trying to understand the motivation behind the delete votes, as that'll help me figure out what I'm missing with my current interpretation of WG:N. — 66.68.113.5 (talk • contribs) is a 10" tall amphibian who has made few edits outside this topic. 66.68.113.5 (talk)
keep - The article could do with some more references, but I think CyanogenMod is a notable distribution (being one of the most popular third party Android builds). Also, the previous AfD appears to boil down to "it isn't notable because it isn't the iPhone" which (IMHO) makes it bunk so should not be considered as part of this AfD. FireFury (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it is trivially easy to verify the existence of CyanogenMod, I cannot find coverage in independent third-party reliable sources, even though I've searched google, yahoo, and the websites of all the mobile handset magazines I can find (not one of which has any coverage). So, despite how popular it appears to be, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are clear that if something has not received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources it does not get a Wikipedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most widely-used Android variant. Easily passes notability criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.65.210 (talk) — 96.224.65.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
As the Notability criteria does not mention anything to do with how widespread use is, and require "significant coverage in reliable third-party sources", please could you explain exactly how this article passes the notability criteria given that nobody has found any such coverage? Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ for now, per WP:IMPERFECT I guess. I'm sparse on policy arguments here, and I acknowledge this article was created prematurely, perhaps for promotional purposes. However, this seems to be a worthy subject (as far as third-party mods of Android go), and the logical merge target article (Android (operating system), in lieu of a well-formed, well-sourced "Android community based firmware" spinoff) is overlong.
If WP:GNG is not satisfied in a few months, then re-list. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. On second thought, the hunt for sources can occur while this resides in userspace—if this many single-purpose editors can be rallied for Keep votes, then volunteers already exist to discover significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources when they come into being. Request return to article space when WP:GNG is satisfied. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - we can keep it for now and keep adding more coverage to article as and when it happens. If that's not doable, and I can't think why, it's always welcome in my user space. virdi (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This debate seems to be tilting towards the deletes, and they are making a lot more cogent arguments. Most of the keepers are just railing against perceived slights by "deletistas" and iPhone "fanbois". Ugh. And while there are also occasional mentions on more "notable" sites like androidandme.com, but I haven't seen many on independent news sites yet (though the article has an Engadget reference). So to the people arguing Delete, what I have to say to you is, the very nature of this project is why most of the discussion is still taking place primarily on forums and blog posts. This is a grassroots and open source project known only to people with Android phones that have the courage and knowhow to alter their phone. That's a niche. But it is a profoundly new way for people to interact with their mobile devices. There is nothing else like it out there among phones sold by major carriers. It is leading the way. Despite lack of major notable sources, the project itself is extremely notable. While it sucks that only a relatively small niche is acquainted with the reasons why the project is so notable, you don't need to be a CyanogenMod or Android user to understand why it's important. Give the project a chance, and allow a little more latitude in your interpretation of WP:NOTABLE. Klondike (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument seems to be "I know this isn't notable but believe me when I tell you it is notable". If you think it should be kept, please show how we can verify the article from independent third party reliable sources. Your statement that "This is a grassroots and open source project known only to people with Android phones that have the courage and knowhow to alter their phone." seems to be a very good definition of a project that is not notable enough for a general purpose encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't entirely disagree with Klondike's keep reasons. However, there have been (during this AfD at least) several attempts to find significant independent coverage, and we have not come up with the WP:GNG-satifactory goods. While I can imagine many niche interests not well-served by reliable sources, there are certainly reputable online sources for hackers and open-source advocates—if CyanogenMod is this popular, there should be a Hacking your Android device with CyanogenMod article in ARStechnica, Engadget or something similar. This is why I suggest userfication for now. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are How-to hack articles on MaximPC magazine's website[52] and CNET[53] and others in a comment above. I am sure they are as good as ARStechnica. Maybe not. virdi (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Hmm. The CNET article just mentions it in passing; that doesn't make a case for notability. However, page 5 of the MaximumPC article includes a write-up on CyanogenMod, and describes it as "[a]rguably the most popular third-party mod out there"—that's pretty good. Significant? I'm not sure.
  Does anyone else think the MaximumPC article puts this over? / edg ☺ ☭ 01:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't get it. CNET noting it "in passing" makes it notable, does it not? I still don't understand the claim that a CNET or Maximum PC is necessary anyway. It's certainly not for similar articles which remain unchallenged and non-controversial, some of which I referred to above. As for "railing against perceived slights by "deletistas" and iPhone "fanbois"", may I remind you that the original comment in the first AfD read as follows: "It's not like this is the iPhone. It's just yet another Apple ripoff like Windows and Linux." That is not good-faith editing. --Replysixty (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed about that not being good-faith editing, and that initial attempt to delete the article was crap. It pissed me off, and is what got me to ask others to join me in pushing back. But that was then, and this is now -- this deletion request is a lot more serious. Klondike (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't get it, you haven't read something. The full extent of the CNET mention is as follows:
    I recently spoke with Steve Kondik (aka Cyanogen) who has released his own customized builds of Android. He told me that Donut builds were [...]
    This is not significant coverage, and does not demonstrate WP:Notability for CyanogenMod. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  References cited so far in this discussion: CNET[54][55], Digg[56], Lifehacker[57][58], Hackaday[59], MaximPCMaximumPC, Androinica, Android And Me, TMO Today, AndroidSPIN, The Hippest Phones, FutureCrue, Phandroidand other websites[60][61][62] virdi (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  And they don't really need to be reposted.
  Neither CNET article is about CyanogenMod, or even mentions it by name
  
  The Hackaday link mentions CyanogenMod’s Recovery Image, but make no reference to CyanogenMod at all. Please do not just throw up every link that mentions Cyanogen as proof that CyanogenMod meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. This just wastes everyone's (by which I mean my) time. It is not likely to get you want you want.
  
  Self-published sources such as forums or Digg are not considered reliable.
  
  AndroidSPIN Developer Homepage for Cyanogen is also self-published.
  
  The Hippest Phones, like the CNET link, mentions Cyanogen but says nothing about CyanogenMod.
  
  ...
  
  I give up. You seem to be ignoring all notability guidelines. Please don't bombard AfD with trivial mentions in hope they demonstrate notability. Please read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources if you haven't already. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  edg, it's really difficult to argue that CyanogenMod meets any strict interpretation of WP:NOTABLE. But I don't subscribe to a strict interpretation of WP:NOTABLE - if something has this much importance, but whose sources are limited to lots and lots of below-the-reputable-line sources, then WP:NOTABLE needs to be either revised to include things of this nature, or simply treated with more latitude. Klondike (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears notable and well sourced to me. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Cyanogen recently got a cease and desist. There may suddenly be a lot more news coverage. joeyo (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ubuntu is not a section of the Linux article. It has its own page. This is analogous. Zacqary Adam Green (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep: CyanogenMod is by far the most widely used and updated Android ROM on the market. Not keeping this diminishes Wikipedia's credibility as well as it would be super gay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.54.242 (talk • contribs) — 66.49.54.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Has become much more notable with additional coverage about Google sending a cease-and-desist. Affects open-source development on the Android platform in general, as this is the first time Google has specifically targeted a single developer over designing for their line of "Google Experience" phones. This may cause development for Android in general shift in a new direction. Discussion on creating a Google-free Android system is pushed further in the "yes" direction...which is also significant. --Eris Siva (talk) 06:13, 25 September 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) 04:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asset voting[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. non-notable. neologism. original research. article created by a banned user (Sarsaparilla). Cordyceps2009 (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because the sources simply don't check out. Appears to be WP:OR Chzz ► 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a good target can be found Merge otherwise Delete this orphan article. -- allen四names 15:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Long and short scales. — Jake Wartenberg 02:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milliard[edit]

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

A misplaced dictionaric article. Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from Wikipedia, per WP:NOTDIC (nothing here beyond definition and etymology) - but perhaps we need to check if any of it could be usefully Transwikid to Wiktionary, to enchance their article? Chzz ► 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - much more extensive than a dictionary definition. Most of the information in the article does not and should not belong in Wiktionary. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Long and short scales.--Chris Johnson (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to new section within 1,000,000,000 (number) or Long and short scales, leaving a redirect. It's longer and has more information than a Wikitionary article, but doesn't need it's own article. It's just an alternate long scale name for billion. Neil Clancy 18:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1,000,000,000 (number), which is where fr.wikipedia puts it. 192.225.128.3 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-403 (computer virus)[edit]

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

Probably a copyvio from the Probert encyclopedia http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/L2.HTM

The other interpretation, that they copied it from Wikipedia, seems unlikely, since this is written in the same format as all the other computer virus entries in the Probert encyclopedia.

More concerning, I couldn't find any sources, besides those based on Wikipedia or Probert, that this virus actually exists. HamburgerRadio (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A virus that infects command.com and damages the FAT. It's not surprising that the nom cannot find any sources on a DOS-era virus. While notability is not temporary, there's nothing to suggest that this one is different from any of the thousands of run-of-the-mill computer viruses. Tim Song (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This virus is even less notable than Parchive, which also lacks in non-trivial coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Tim Song. Joe Chill (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Chzz ► 21:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 20 September 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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Undergraduate Legal Committee[edit]

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

An IP reverted my redirect of this article to Harvard College, which I treated as contesting the CSD tag that was applied prior to the redirect. I'm unable to find any third-party, published, reliable sources on this subject. Limited number of non-WP Ghits (all, as far as I can determine, are either trivial mentions or non-third-party sources), zero Gnews hit. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Tim Song (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG, completely irrelevant to anyone outside the university. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable organisation, no coverage in third-party reliable sources. Hut 8.5 17:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent notability Chzz ► 21:38, 18 September 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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Final musician[edit]

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

Unsourced, not notable musical artist. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable self-promotion. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general notability guidelines (and yes, all of the above too) Chzz ► 21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 20 September 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) 04:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Manila Area earthquake prediction[edit]

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

The article is about a prediction not widely covered by reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. Bluemask (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An article based on a prediction? (And aslo per Wp:CRYSTAL as well.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fictional prediction; not encycopaedic. Per WP:CRYSTAL, if we start writing articles about things that might happen, where do we stop? I suppose it might be possible to write something about "Earthquake preparadness in xxx", giving reliable sources showing preventative measures in anticipation of a quake, but - at the moment, the whole 'predicted deaths' etc is just original research. Chzz ► 17:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to spitting. — Jake Wartenberg 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeking[edit]

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

This article lacks any basis whatsoever. Cutno (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to originate with -inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&source=gbs_navlinks_s The official dictionary of unofficial English, perhaps. Some of the exact text is all over the net, so may be copyvio, but it's hard to say who copied who. Anyway, it's WP:NEO and fails WP:NOTDIC (and WP:GNG). Chzz ► 04:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to spitting. Ikip (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to spitting. I've heard the term ages back, it's not exactly a neologism, but wikipedia is not a dictionary and this could be covered perfectly well within the context of the spitting article. Simonm223 (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it's in the Urban Dictionary, it also is an antiquarian term for "jesting." --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is my first time coming across the article but it seems to add to the stock of human knowledge of the reader. Rather encyclopedic. And re the 'redirect to spitting idea'. Have you read the spitting article? Lead states: "act of forcibly ejecting saliva or other substances from the mouth.". 'Gleeking' is mostly involuntary, and why I cant back that up with a source, it is something that can't be done on demand without a fair practice. Spitting however, is rather easy. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already a word for Gleeking; It's called "Drooling". Cutno (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's something completely different personal attack removed. Tim Song (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC). IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Robert Maday. Originally closed by User:Mixwell, reclosing to fix formatting. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mayday[edit]

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

Lacking significant coverage to be verifiable as notable, as per WP:BIO and WP:V. Without additional sources, this would seem to fall under WP:NOT, specifically "News Reports". OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT Chzz ► 04:14, 18 September 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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Dale Gregory[edit]

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

BLP totally devoid of reliable, verifiable sources seems to promote the subject's candidacy for political office (US Congressman from North Carolina's 10th Congressional district) and was created by an SPA with a probable COI and referenced to the subject (presumably via personal interaction)[63]. Need I also mention that Wikipedia is NOT a web host? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only no sources but I strongly suspect WP:COI as well. Eeekster (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - As I mentionned previously I am not sure if no sources is grounds for deletion, but it does sound like a possible WP:AUTOBIO (if not at least WP:COI). With the amount of small information available (this unrelated court case is the only ref a quick google search turns up) and no references, it's hard to believe that there's any way that this could not be COI. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ttonyb1 (talk · contribs) has tagged this article as subject to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 (person), twice. I'm not sure A7 applies because the article asserts the subject is a candidate for US Congress. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been discussing the issue with Ttonyb1 (talk · contribs) on my talk page. CSD A7 is for articles with "no indication of notability." Running for congress would seem to never fit into that category, regardless of the outcome of this AfD discussion. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Yes, I have marked with a CSD. The individual has no GHits, no GNEWS, and the article is lacking references. Candidacy for a public office generally is not seen as an assertion of notability. All it takes is a filing fee and completion of paperwork. By the article's own admission, "He has yet to win the parties nomination and currently has competition for the position," and has only announced his intention to run. ttonyb (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite any policy, guideline, or precedent to support your position on candidacy for a public office? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sure, Item #3 OF WP:POLITICIAN and also from WP:CSD, "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for articles with no practical chance of surviving discussion. ttonyb (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll buy Item #3 OF WP:POLITICIAN. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll not revert your CSD nom unless I see sufficient sources. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No problem and thanks. Either way, it appears the article will not survive the AfD. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did not agree with the CSD nomination, but I still can't find a single reliable source, despite attempting a rescue. I think AfD was the right place for this article, but I can also see the logic in the arguments made by Ttonyb1 (talk · contribs). At this point, I think we're splitting hairs over how to delete, but in the meantime, it gave the author of the article a chance to attempt to resolve the notability issues. I will userfy the information for the author's future reference in the event notability guidelines can be met. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN on the political end and WP:BIO otherwise. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Wikipedia is not a notice-board for election posters. JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability at present Chzz ► 21:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to luxury box. — Jake Wartenberg 02:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private box[edit]

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

This article is about a nonnotable organization which fails WP:ORG as it hasn't been the subject discussion in reliable, third-party sources. The article also appears to be solely for the purposes of advertising, but doesn't appear to be speediable. Them From Space 02:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to original redirect to luxury box. Unnotable small business. Nate • (chatter) 03:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect; otherwise it might be undone. Delete as non-notable org, per WP:ORG and WP:GNG Chzz ► 04:16, 18 September 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 closed as moot. Article has been already speedily deleted (WP:CSD#A7) by User:Charles Matthews. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Irvin[edit]

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

Despite claims of notability, I only found one or two articles on Gnews about her (several duplicates of the same article, however.) Gbooks turned up nothing. Gsearch turned up a few promotional articles about real estate investing, but nothing that justifies the notability claims the article makes, much less satisfies WP:NOT imho. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reason stated. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:14, 18 September 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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Randall[edit]

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

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 02:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. No broader consequences, just a terrible murder. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article, although poorly written, includes the cited information that investigation into the murder led to the censure of a major public hospital [64] for failing to take action regarding recognizable child abuse and to corrective action (in theory). Article may require retitling. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not biographical material. You say the article may need retitling, but what you are really talking about is something that would be discussed in an article on that hospital, which is much more than retitling. Dominic·t 02:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, more like an article on "Murder of Jessica Randall"; there are quite a few similar articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps, though that article would seem to have some of the same issues as this one, in that there is little to establish historical significance aside from the tidbit about the hospital. In any case, my point was that you are proposing a new article on a different topic from this biographical one, so you aren't asking for a retitling at all. You don't need to vote at AfD to start an article. Dominic·t 05:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 15:25, 20 September 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) 04:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Souhegan, North Carolina[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:Notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like some form of a nickname for a local farm/art studio, although Wikipedia is extremely open to all geography articles this one does not seem like the case. A GNIS query results in nothing, so my thoughts are delete. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh.... - Does look like there's some article that profiled the farm, but every old house/farm is not notable, even if an artist lives there. How about merging into Tyrrell County, North Carolina, unless article is fleshed out to show independent notability. Creator of article appears to be newbie and local to area discussed and shouldn't be discouraged.--Milowent (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a disambiguation article at Souhegan that has included for nearly four years the line "Souhegan, North Carolina, a community in Scuppernong, North Carolina". Agreed that geographical locations have wide berth, but then, if Souhegan, North Carolina, is a community, an article by this name should be about that community. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, glad you found that. I'll try to do a little more searching. If there is anything we can find that supports the existence of this as a community place name, it should be kept. --Milowent (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the "Our State" article[65] - Souhegan there is only referred as the name of the farm, but that name must come from somewhere. Soughegan is also a variety of raspberry that got its name from an area in New Hampshire (which has a Souhegan river). I found an 1890 North Carolina Ag. Dept government publication from its "experimental" farm that says that Souhegan raspberries did well that year[66], but haven't found anything saying raspberries were grown in this location. Where else to go?--Milowent (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there is no such place as "Souhegan, North Carolina". I see this as an attempt to piggyback in on the rule that inhabited communities are inherently notable. However, from the article, "Souhegan is the name of a farm in Tyrrell County, North Carolina and residence of sculptor artist, Tom Kilian." Lots of people like to give a name to their farm or their estate, but I don't think this would pass as "Tom Kilian's Home, NC". Mandsford (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New info It says right here on the artist's website that location of his farm is Columbia, North Carolina. Considering as well that there are no supporting WP:GHITS for "Souhegan, North Caroina", I submit that it isn't a geographic location at all. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above investigations, it would appear to be impossible to write a referenced article on this subject Chzz ► 21:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, read through this article in all it's variations and nothing suggests any notability even the references and citations are moot at best RichardLowther (talk) 14:36, 20 September 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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formal language (logic)[edit]

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

Created as a POV fork of Formal language, after discussion at Talk:Formal_language did not support the creator's opinions about article content. I asked about this being a POV fork at User_talk:Gregbard#Formal_language_(logic) before nominating.

This is a POV fork because:

There are no sources that say that formal languages "in logic" are any different than formal languages in computer science and mathematics. The sources from mathematics listed in the article are actually from mathematical logic.

Nor is there sufficient agreed-upon material in the formal language article itself to warrant a split because of length.

Per WP:POV fork,

"The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion."

— Carl (CBM · talk) 01:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete misunderstanding of what a POV fork is' -- If for instance the claim was that the article is written from a logicist, or diatheistic POV, that would be a legitimate claim. However, Arthur, CBM, and many others in the math department have repeatedly complained about a "pro-philosophy" or ""philosophical logic" POV. PLEASE LET ME CORRECT THIS. There is no such thing as a "pro-philosophy" POV. Just covering the philosophical content, is not itself POV (obviously this would be insane, since all articles under WP:PHILO's scope would be POV). One of the outcomes of this nomination should be to bring an end to the spurious claims of "POV". It really is a fundamental misunderstanding that acts as a big smokescreen to confuse the issue. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The "split" (not fork) is necessary, due to the repeated deletion of material along stark interdisciplinary lines. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect, without merge, to the parent article). The "theory" sections are not part of "formal language" as used in logic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question I've read this article carefully, and I don't see how the (more vague) definition given in it differs from that at formal language. Furthermore, most applications listed are the same in both articles. I saw on Talk:formal language that there was some disagreement over the inclusion of the image that's shown in this article, because "well-formed formulas" and theorems are not commonly define for formal languages outside Logic; as far as I can tell that image could be placed in a section at formal language instead of placing it at the top of the article. Is there anything else that beckons for a separate article? Pcap ping 01:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the definition given in formal language (logic) is more precise not more vague, it is, however more general and therefore more useful for describing logic, math and computers at the same time. It seems that you agree with me that the content having to do with formal languages as used in logic should never have been repeatedly deleted from the original article. There are many statements of truth made in the (logic) article which had been deleted from the original. It is not acceptable. Perhaps there could be a merge (a good complete merge), which I would support. However, I believe it will continue to be a mess which can be avoided by splitting. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example of a language that meets the definition of formal language (logic), but not that of formal language? Pcap ping 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge There really should only be one article, but it should contain some of the content from the forked article. I would be opposed to deleting without covering this material. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That sort of thing can be argued on the talk page. The information in the fork is covered elsewhere, as appropriate for the topics there. The reason that the fork is inappropriate is exactly that it was created because the author was unable to convince anyone else (via citations, sound arguments, or other means) that the material actually belongs in an article on formal languages, rather than articles on formal systems, etc. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unfair characterization. Hunter's Metalogic is a reliable source. Even Arthur agrees that it is reliable, but just thinks it belongs on the other side of the street. However when one tries to move to the other side of the street it isn't allowed. This is plain wrong. You can't have it both ways. Cover the material about formal languages, including the fact that a formal language is an idea, that the marks on the page are a token of the idea, etcetera. Otherwise there is no right to complain. I am pretty sure I have determined that none of you guys cares that a formal language is an "idea," (and other facts) so you should be quite grateful to make the split. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter wrote a book on ~~philosophical logic~~ metalogic addressed to non-mathematicians; see the preface fo his book (edited: 02:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)). With that audience in mind, he was less formal. That does not make his idea of a formal language different. Please see page 4 in his book. He clearly refers to an alphabet just like formal language does. You still haven't replied to my question above... Pcap ping 02:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree with me that the idea is not different, and that there should be one comprehensive article. However, the group is not willing to allow a comprehensive article. Hunter's language is more precise on most of the terms being used, and when it is not he says so specifically (see effective method). This actually is the appropriate text to use for clear, precise language, so I have to object to the characterization. Analytic philosophers, and philosophical logicians set out to identify the clearest language as the fundamental job they do. You absolutely should be using Hunter's language over language used in a math text which is more informal (in the sense used in the above paragraph.) I'm sorry, but that is the academic and intellectual reality. It is the proper role of logicians to be telling mathematicians about the fundamentals. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a separate article because you can't get to a consensus on the presentation of the same concept is treading WP:POINT. Immediately changing dozens of links with WP:AWB to point to your favorite presentation is also WP:DISRUPTION. Pcap ping 03:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a bad attitude. AGF. No it isn't "point" or "disruption". It's diligence. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a POV fork per se but it certainly is a useless fork. It's the same content with a somewhat different take on the whole thing. But I've read it carefully (I am competent to do so if anyone cares) and it's quite simply redundant. One can write formula instead of word but it's still a finite sequence of symbols (or should I say finite sequence of letters?) The article is also poorly written and unnecessarily confusing. The second and third sentences seem particularly devoid of meaning. Simply saying "a formal language is a set of strings" would carry the same precise idea. Pichpich (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the problem here is that very often the distinctions that philosophers make appear to be "devoid of meaning", especially in logic, and including when they are actually quite insightful. ("An object is the same as itself") I have a particular interest in preserving the 2nd and third sentences (which are ones which had been deleted from formal language). These are statements which tell us something fundamental about formal languages, and if you do not care to address them, then a split is justified. If you just take the attitude that you don't care then you will never see a need to split the article. I don't care if you care, but do not remove content that others care about (as has been demonstrated by its presence in a reliable text on the subject). With respect, your criticism amounts to a subjective opinion. And no, it is not precisely the same as you have characterized. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a distinction that logicians or philosophers make. Take the third sentence: it's a way to say "a formal language is a set" without using the word "set". It might prove useful if one is worried about the audience being unfamiliar with the notion but it doesn't convey anything else. It reminds me of the good ol' days of my undergrad studies. The math department's logician had retired and for a couple of years the only undergrad logic course was given in the philosophy department. While the textbook said things like "a formal language is a set", the teacher spent significant time explaining that idea for the philosophy department students. Not because the sentence was imprecise but because she wanted to make sure they got the concept. Pichpich (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep is it notable? yes. is it substantive different? yes. is it better than the article it split from? clearly yes. the original article should be deleted, this one should be kept if there is a choice between the two, otherwise, both should exist. --Buridan (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The voice of reason as usual. Thank goodness for you. Be well.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does "notable" mean in this context? Pichpich (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Enough pandering to WP:RANDYs who cannot even explain how the notions differ but invoke WP:NPOV. I will strike this and change my vote if you can answer my question about the differences between these notions I asked above. Pcap ping 03:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the concept that is different. However, there are obviously many areas being covered in the new article which are not in the old. Furthermore, there is hostility toward such coverage. Choose one or the other. If it's deleted then all of that content is going to be merged into the original.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles here are edited according to WP:CONSENSUS. Willingly creating a WP:CFORK and then demanding in exchange for its deletion that your idiosyncratic misunderstandings of the topic be included in the original article is WP:DISRUPTION. Pcap ping 04:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about a "disruption" is that there actually has to be something legitimate going on to disrupt... otherwise its an intervention. The whole thing helps to avoid disruption. I don't have any misunderstanding that you have demonstrated, so I will have to identify this as more high rhetoric and bad attitude. The content I am advocating is not idiosyncratic at all, having been addressed by Carnap, Tarski and Quine. Just stop it. Seriously. Call the cops why don't you?! What a drama queen. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork. The terms are the same and should be discussed in the same article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, oppose merge if that's not clear. The material is not in good condition and would be better rewritten. Like Hermel, below, I have not yet formed an opinion on the proper mix of content at Formal language, but this material as written is not suitable for a merge. Generally speaking, I welcome the addition of this sort of information; without fully understanding the objections in Talk:Formal language I can't say much more. Perhaps I will contribute to this article in the future to add more logic content to Formal language. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The objections to User:Gregbard's approach can be best summarized by quoting this analogy due to User:Hans Adler, which is over a year old (yes, the POV pushing has been going on for that long):

“

I have only now become aware of this exchange. To make clear how ridiculous it is, let's suppose an editor has hijacked the article automobile and now it mainly talks about tractors, the only kind of automobile that this editor knows about, and it puts particular emphasis on ploughing. Then we could have an exchange like the following:

I am unhappy to see the article in its present state. There have been many changes that are specific to agriculture; the information provided is useful, but is mistakenly presented as if it pertains to automobiles in general. Perhaps make a separate section about automobiles in agriculture?

I sympathize with having an article seemingly taken over. I am not really aware of the applications of automobiles in human transport, etc. However, I would assume that the reason that there exist applications in freight traffic, human transport, and anywhere else is because we can use a tractor as a tool for pulling cargo carts.

I am curious about the claim "mistakenly presented as if it pertains to automobiles in general." Is there something there that is not true generally of automobiles? It seems to me that these aspects are the most general aspects, while applications in human transport are more specific. I think in all cases the applications can be expressed in terms of the agricultural aspects of the topic. I would like to see all of these aspects covered. I would like to see an interdisciplinary coverage of the topic.

There seem to be no bounds to Gregbard's overestimation of his own knowledge. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

”

- - See also this "OMG" thread by some unfortunate newbie who stumbled onto the talk page. Pcap ping 10:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm commenting out the RfC tag. AfD lasts 7 days. RfC lasts 30 days. If RfC is necessary, please use the article talk page, etc., not AfD. Tim Song (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - intentional content fork which describes the same concept as the original article. Creating a content fork is not an acceptable way of addressing a content debate. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is a POV fork, and an example of why we take POV forks to be unacceptable. The subject matter of formal languages is quite well-defined. If discussions of topic X related to formal languages doesn't belong or fit in formal language, it can be discussed in an article on X, from all aspects. But it really is not possible to argue for an article simply for some different perspective on formal languages as such. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is clearly a POV fork. A rather lengthy discussion about how much weight should be given to logical concepts in the formal language article was started at 23 May 2008 in Talk:Formal_language/Archive_1#Mathematical_logic_has_crept_in_and_taken_over. In the course of that discussion, the creator of this article already had proposed to start a separate article about Formal language (logic), which was also discussed. See the archived discussion. Here, I do not want to imply anything about the question "How much weight should be given to logical concepts in the formal language article?". I just want to make the point that this is a POV fork.Hermel (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I actually don't entirely understand that discussion and certainly haven't formed a conclusion; I only feel that this article is an unacceptable fork. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. A formal language is the same in all the contexts that have been mentioned. It is a set of strings drawn from an alphabet. Taemyr (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork. I also agree with Pichpich concerning the "poorly written" and "needlessly confusing" part. Huon (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fork (Not quite convinced about the POV part). The lead phrase is fundamentally wrong, and of course there cannot be a construct which will satisfy the definition of formal language (logic), but not that of formal language. There is a special viewpoint from which logicans view formal languages. It differs somewhat (in wording) from the mathematical point of view, it differs widely from the linguistic point of view. But this difference must necessarily be pointed out in the main article, not in some half-copied, half-invented fork split from it. --Pgallert (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Logicians use formal languages in two different ways, depending on context: (1) In the standard sense when working in areas close to computer science. (2) In a perhaps slightly more restrictive but ill-defined sense when using them to define the syntax of languages. For (1) a separate article makes no sense at all. For (2) we can't write a separate article because this definition is almost never made explicit. I have never seen an author make (2) explicit, but I would expect that they either use the same definition as (1) or ad hoc definitions that depend more on the author's didactic approach and the precise intended application than anything else, and that any agreement in this area between different authors is the result of accident or plagiarism.

For (1) a separate article is completely inappropriate because the distinction logic/not logic makes no sense. For (2) a separate article is inappropriate because the topic is not notable at all. Far from having sources that focus on the topic itself (as required by WP:N), we can't even tell whether any serious author actually intends to make such a difference, as opposed to glossing over potential difficulties for non-mathematicians by means of an imprecise, intuitive approach. Hans Adler 16:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to the main article, or delete. POV forking is not an approved method to deal with content disputes. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on merging The main article does have a section of appropriate WP:WEIGHT, i.e. Formal language#Formal systems. As you can see, that section defers details to formal system, which is the proper place to discuss most of the issues in the article being discussed for deletion here. In fact this AfD'd article has an obscured form of the definition from formal language, but the body is essentially a duplication of the contents from formal system. Most of the article's body are summaries of other articles with ((main)) tags. So, I don't see what's useful here to merge anywhere... Pcap ping 12:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against later recreation. The pianist is still at the beginning of the career so things may change considerably. Tone 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Kerstens[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion with some claim of importance as there is also an article in the Dutch wiki, both unsourced, brought here for further assessment after 2 days in the speedy queue. Delete unless reliable independent in-depth sources can be found. Tikiwont (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understood, I am working on gathering/adding the required sources --H9000 (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy if the creator wishes to keep searching for sources, but I could find only one news source[67], and that appears to be just a mention on a list. pablo_hablo. 07:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources that support the accuracy and facts. The 6th reference supports the notability of the artist. --H9000 (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources "support the accuracy and facts", but all of it are only trivial mentions. Vera Kerstens doesn't meet the WP:MUSICBIO. Nothing significant in reliable sources. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She has received coverage in a reliable source of an international tour (one of many tours she has been on) and won thé major dutch award for classical music performance. I figured that'd meet the WP:MUSICBIO (but am often mistaken). --H9000 (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources mostly are passing mentions, one is a Wikipedia self-reference and doesn't say all it's supposed to say. Huon (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might I be as bold to suggest instead of deleting the page because of said lack of in-depth sources, using refimprove and allow the article to be improved in time? --H9000 (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, the Princess Christina Competition is not a "major music competition" as required for notability per WP:MUSICBIO, and she has no other claim to notability except a passing mention in a concert announcement. That's unlikely to change if we tag the article. Furthermore, the majority of the article's current content, including such basic details as her birthdate, is not supported by sources and probably unverifiable. If the article gets deleted now, it may be recreated once Kerstens has become more notable and better sources are available. Huon (talk) 07:31, 22 September 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. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Festival du nord de la culture urbaine[edit]

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

Probably not notable yet, since the first event hasn't even occurred yet and I can't find WP:GHITS for {"festival du nord" maroc} or { "festival du nord" "culture urbaine" } or { festival2nord }. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I just realized that the article is a promotion by the creator of the event, so I just requested speedy deletion. I'll report back here if that's denied. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, a promotion of a nonnotable event which even did not happen yet. Laudak (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A speedy deletion request (CSD G11) for this article was declined. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources, non-notable. The conflict of interest doesn't help, either. Huon (talk) 14:33, 18 September 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. NW (Talk) 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Parole[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since July 2009. Gsearches turn up nothing aside from cursory mentions in PR statements. I conclude this executive fails WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 15:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 16:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Randy Parole and Randy J. Parole. No significant coverage in reliable sources asserting notability. Location (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC) [edited 23:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that the individual meets the threshold of notability listed at WP:BIO. No independent reliable sources found. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete it, McDonalds and netflix talk about themselves on this too doesn't that mean they are advertising themselves? don't be hypocritical—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheiseus (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Reply - Other stuff exists isn't a viable keep argument. If you want your article kept, read WP:BIO then update the Randy Parole article to meet that notability guideline by using reliable sources to provide verifiability. Also, regarding the comparisons you mentioned ... this is an article about a person, not a company - so the notability guidelines are slightly different - but there are still guidelines. The Netflix and McDonalds articles meet the notability guideline of WP:CORP. Meanwhile, the Randy Parole article does not currently seem to meet the notability guideline of WP:BIO. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply you guys are total snobs get over yourselves this is public domain and he has a right to be on here if he wishes. its not like its graffiti or porn, he is a member of a business community and wants to be mentioned. If Bill gates gets to be on here then why not randy Parole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheiseus (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 September 2009
    - Comment - You were already directed to WP:BIO. Please read it. Randy Parole does not seem to currently meet that notability guideline - while the Bill Gates article that you mentioned does show he is notable per the threshold outlined in that guideline. Also, you seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not public domain. All contributions to it are under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. Likewise, Wikipedia is not a webhost for personal web pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Hardy[edit]

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

See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 11:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tend to think serial killers, particularly those in the UK, are notable. His crimes pre-dated the internet, but he has received news coverage over 30 years later: [68][69][70]. Location (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Location (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think in this case a separate page is suitable. Not only is he notable for multiple crime acts, the sources also have other reasons he could be considered notable, such as receiving such a long sentence. And (as Location says) he doesn't appear to have kept a low profile, even 30 years later he is still in news articles, and mentioned (presumably) in a national tv show. I also agree with Location's reasoning - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:28, 18 September 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. NW (Talk) 16:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ostaro[edit]

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

Unref article on non notable person, appears to be advertising Estragons (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: first 50 results on Google came up with little but IMDB (and that was with whom he had worked), a blank NY Times Movie article and fansites. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ 50 hits is 50 hits... more than a regular unknown person gets atleast. I have heard of this person. Obvious keeper.--Judo112 (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That rationale is a combination of WP:GHITS and WP:IKNOWIT. Please support your comment with an actual rationale please. NW (Talk) 19:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per earlier statments and per overall notability and sources.--Judo112 (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in agreeance with the Greek guy that this person is non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavix (talk • contribs)
Comment: not sure on notability but I did find this. Tim Song (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was curious about the Jon Stewart/David Letterman appearances. He didn't appear as a guest, but as a character in those fake man-in-the-street who will say whatever clips. I imagine he had less than 30 seconds of airtime on both shows combined. WP:BURDEN puts the effort to document this person on the author of the article. It hasn't been done. Miami33139 (talk) 02:38, 25 September 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave's Farm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notablility, he is not notable outside of Youtube apart from a (minor) WP:BLP1E event where his farm was raided for environmental reasons. Article appears to be written by a fan, and several IPs have tried adding material inappropriate to WP:BLP, without reliable sources. Martin451 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has already been deleted before in an AfD. Martin451 (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However (a) this content is not identical to the previously deleted content from 2007, and (b) the arguments in the prior AFD discussion in 2007 about non-Youtube sources clearly don't apply now. Uncle G (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable YouTuber, he doesn't even have awards. Jeremjay 24 00:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems pretty non-notable to me. I should mention that I raised the BLP issues at the BLP noticeboard. The fact that the article about this relatively non-notable figure is also, it seems, going to become a magnet for BLP concerns tips the balance for me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Made it more than once to the top Youtube's video page and traditional media reported as well. Falls roughly into the same category as Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity). - 83.254.210.47 (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This guy is no Lisa Nova or iJustine. Although I know that his pedophile accusations are true (there is a mountain of evidence and observations to prove it, just visit This forum, I don't see how the guy will be notable until his "farm" is raided and he is arrested, as I can see the case getting lots of attention when the guy is brought down. Karrmann (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Heralds of Unicron. — Jake Wartenberg 02:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hook, Line and Sinker (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable characters. I found no reliable sources that show they are notable. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced and trivial. Trio is an unlikely search term. --EEMIV (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These characters lack independent notability Chzz ► 21:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very short lived characters that had no impact it would seem.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Wherever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give an actual reason. Saying keep or merge isn't very helpful. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Heralds of Unicron. Not major characters but significant enough for a short description in the general article about minions of Unicron. --Polaron | Talk 23:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in agreement with Poleron. -- allen四names 18:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Waldriff[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. simply playing Jackie Kennedy or acting with famous actors does not equate to notable. hardly anything in gnews [71]. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 18 September 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) 01:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellery Sprayberry[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. hardly any third party coverage [72]. LibStar (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as currently failing WP:BIO amd WP:GNG. Neither of the currently used sources is acceptable to Wikipedia... an IMBD profile and one on Episodeworld. Coverage in reliable sources is only her name in connection with a role [73]... nothing more. While yes, she is a cute child actress and may be destined for bigger things, it will be best to wait until she either gets some significant roles or gets greater coverage in sources, or both. Right now, its just not enough. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:55, 18 September 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) 01:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lambert (musician)[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. I could only find one local story/item about his release party and that doesn't make a person notable. Clubmarx (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related album page:

delete no notability shown, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A7. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MuZemike 19:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Off Campus[edit]

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

Non-notable student organization of the University of Chicago. Although they have produced a bunch of people who have worked for famous things, notability is not inherited. No significant third-party coverage; ghits give resumes of former actors in Off-off, and GBooks yields a few psychology books by the same author that treat it for a couple pages as an example of creative teamwork, but nothing that seems like it wouldn't apply to any other professional/semi-professional improv group. — DroEsperanto (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see hits on google news archive to chicago and papers that appear to be on this group, many are pay to view. Article does need some citation added. -- [74] --Milowent (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you narrow it down to exclude sources from uchicago.edu and to include "improvisation" you get 14 results, most of which refer to a "50th anniversary of improv" suggesting that their main topic is Off-Off's predecessor organization, the Compass Players. [75] — DroEsperanto (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student improv groups will sometimes g-test favorably, but upon further research are largely non-notable, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Off-Off Campus seems to mentioned in at least a couple biographies of "notable" people. While I don't know if the arguement is invalidated by the "notability is not inherited" arguement or not, on at least on a practical level, it would be convienient for those readers to have a wikilink back to an Off-Off Campus page to explain to them just what exactly that is. (Or they could do a quick g-search, whatever :P) Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could easily be taken care of in-sentence in a bio article(e.g., "Actor X started acting in Off-Off Campus, a comedy improvisation group at the University of Chicago). — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply lacks the sources to meet WP:ORG. Since many notable people have a university education, and since they are likely to have belonged to a range of clubs and societies, ergo most university clubs will be able to point to many notable alumni. Consequently, I don't think that there is any inherent notability unless it can be shown that membership of that club has significantly contributed to their future notability. Rather more importantly, the content fails the policy WP:V with unsourceable statements such as "and the group continues to build on the foundation he created. In addition to Off-Off's rich tradition,". TerriersFan (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails to establish notability. Also much of the notability listed is inherited which is not enough to keep the article in its current state. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and note re article improvements: I voted keep in the 1st listing of this AfD above. Apparently no one has tried to access the pay articles that seem to reference this group (the big chicago papers), but I went thru and added a number of UofC related publication cites (also, the Maroon, the primary student paper, seems to have at least one in-depth review each year of the group's shows but i did not cite all of those). In terms of notability, I have also discovered and added that this is the 2nd oldest college improv group in the country. I think the alumni who went on to individual notability is of some additional value for keeping as well, because its a common thread for each of them. --Milowent (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does need some more sourcing and while I realize notability is not inherited, it does appear that a few famous people got their start there and just for completion sake it would be nice if those people's articles could link back to this one. I'll try to add some more sources tomorrow; hopefully, it will be enough to strengthen the article. Mathieas (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have articles on Wikipedia only if the topic is notable (and, in a few cases, if a subsection becomes too large for its article and gets split off), not "for completion sake". However, I gladly welcome (and encourage) you to find sources. — DroEsperanto (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of why there are articles on Wikipedia, thanks. Also, it looks like a lot of sources have already been added to the article. If folks still think this article is not notable on its own, perhaps a merge with the Compass Players article? From what I can determine from researching the Off-off Campus it looks like there is a line that connects the Compass Players, Second City and Off-off campus. It's an idea. Mathieas (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - While those sources are excellent for verifying information, they're really not independent enough to provide notability, since they're school publications. A merge might be appropriate, though. — DroEsperanto (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, how "independent" do they need to be? Its seems hard to not accord them any value, as the primary sources that would cover this organization are going to be the media sources that cover the University of Chicago. The Maroon appears to be a significant student-run paper, its not beholden to any student groups. Also, the cite I found to the Chicago Time Out is not affiliated with UofC at all. Plus, w ecan tell via google news search that there have been references to the group in the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times; we just can't tell how significant because we can't access them, but that's also some evidence of notability; we shouldn't turn a blind eye to it. Some articles appear to discuss trips the group took to perform in Scotland. I did add a new cite to a 2000 NY Times article on this Auburn graduate, that has a graf referencing his start with this group. I know its not the world's best argument to point out that wikipedia is full of articles which could never get the amount of sourcing this one already has, but its true.(see, e.g., Fresh concepts, Erasable Inc., CHiPs Improv (somewhat similar as most sources are student paper, though not as many sources overall), etc.)--Milowent (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:UNIGUIDE writes:

The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by organizations—none of which should be written by any part of the union/organization/government or university itself. These sources may come from other universities or from the university press but never from the university which the group or organization is a part of.

That would seem to exclude the Maroon from use as a notability-establishing source, no matter how "significant" it is. This doesn't totally preclude all student groups from inclusion in Wikipedia, however: a recent AFD for University of Chicago Band ended in keep because quality sources were found. I have already stated my suspicion of the quality of the Google News sources: they all seem either completely irrelevant (e.g., "Jessica found on-campus housing at Georgia Tech too expansive, so she moved off-off campus") or give bare mentions (including the source you added, which includes only four sentences about Off-Off), or, from the abstracts and titles, seem to be about the Compass Players or some other group, very likely only mentioning Off-Off in passing. And, as you mention, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument for notability, especially when all the examples cited have notability tags on them.

As for the other sources you added, their mentions are inadequate for establishing notability: four brief sentences in the Chicago Time Out in a piece with a handful of other improv groups, and one passing sentence in the NYT article. A minor mention in a local paper and a passing reference isn't significant coverage.— DroEsperanto (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks for linking to the WP:UNIGUIDE, that's useful info. It also says "Student-published college newspapers and university-published press releases are generally reliable sources for verifying information, however, these sources cannot be used to establish encyclopedic notability." So the Maroon doesn't help on notability under the guideline, I have to concede. On the google news sources, I wasn't including the Georgia Tech type hits in my thoughts.

Here are some of the ones i see:

Improv Theater Celebrates 50th Anniversary, Associated Press (July 5, 2005)(pay article; the 50th anniversary of improv in chicago is based on the continuum of the compass players through Off Off Campus -- its not a fifty year period unless you count Off Campus from 1986-2005; also it was Off Off Campus that performed at this 50 year show)
Seeds of improv sown at U. of C. // University to celebrate 50th anniversary of debut show, Chicago Sun Times (July 4, 2005) (pay article; same comment)
Everything points to a lot of fun for Compass event, Chicago Sun Times (July 1, 2005) (pay article; same comment)
Compass Co-Founder Returns to Chicago to Recreate the Birth of Improv Comedy 50 Years Ago, Business Wire (June 27, 2005) (pay article; same comment)
CAN MATH ON THE MIDWAY BE EXCITING THEATER? HERE'S `PROOF' Chicago Tribune (Dec. 13, 2000) (pay article, about David Auburn, we can tell Off Off is mentioned, don't know how much)
LIVING `PROOF' U. OF C. GRAD IS NOW HOTTEST PLAYWRIGHT ON BROADWAY AND PRIME CONTENDER FOR A PULITZER Chicago Tribune (Apr. 16, 2001) (Pay article, same as last one)
ECONOMICS PROF CRUNCHES NUMBERS TO COMEDIC EFFECT, Chicago Tribute (Nov. 13, 1998) (pay article, Auburn again)
The Right Equation ; A lifelong interest in theater and a casual interest in math add up to a playwright's dream for 'Proof' author David Auburn, Baltimore Sun (Feb. 25, 2002) (pay article; appears to be covered in another Auburn-based article)
The 'Proof' of Playwright's Talents Is in His New Work's Prizes; Theater * David Auburn's second full-length play has won some of drama's highest distinctions, Los Angeles Times (June 4, 2001) (pay article; auburn again)
Gridiron Show tops list of local follies, Chigago Sun-Times (May 18, 1990) (pay article, extent of coverage unknown)
Edinburgh or Bust, Troupes Vow, Chicago Sun-Times (July 28, 1995) (pay article, extent of coverage unknown, but appears to cover one of group's trips to Ediburgh)
Edinburgh bloodbath Fest hopefuls find competition withering, go home penniless, Chicago Tribute (Sept. 27, 1989) (pay article, same topic as last, for different trip)

So, I think we have a likely case here of "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability" -- some of these articles, maybe most or all, don't have substantial coverage of the subject, but all have some coverage of it, which is some proof of notability, I think. I wonder if there is guidance somewhere about what to do when you know of the existence of articles that cover a subject, but no one has yet accessed them for inclusion.

Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists can be a useful argument for notability in some cases, as "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."

So, that's why I think this crosses over into notability, excluding the university related sources. Hopefully my work of gathering these cites is not in vain and someone who has access to these archives will access them.--Milowent (talk) 13:40, 25 September 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hodges[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. A number mentions in church related articles; however, lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance to support notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable: If anything, it's the church that would be notable if sufficiently covered. Of the four references supplied, the first is trivial coverage, the second and third are about the church and not Hodges, and the fourth is about a separate organisation. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the church, which actually is notable. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO; the church doesn't seem notable either, despite the dubious claim of "fastest growing church in the United States" from what may not be a reliable, third party source. Altairisfar _talk 13:40, 18 September 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. GlassCobra 20:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Amrit[edit]

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

I'm not finding sufficient sources or references to prove that subject of this autobiography meets any notability requirements. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to meet WP:BIO and a Google search [76] and search of Google News [77] don't turn up any in-depth coverage of Mr Amrit. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its seems quite likely that Mr. Amrit created this article himself, though it really belongs on his personal URL, not here, if that's the case. But "Bula Bollywood" apparently may actually show on Fiji television for what that's worth. --Milowent (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please refer to the following sites and search result on google to prove that this is a genuine article:
- http://www.ajaywebsite.com - this is Ajays Personal Website and has all the activites he is involved in. If you search Ajay Amrit on Google you will see his name in many articles in relation to what is stated in his website.
- http://www.carvingdream.com - this is ajays entertainment company
- Videos on You Tube from his TV series Bula Bollywood: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]

Also now more references has been added to verify that Ajay Amrit is also involved in Community Service and is a notable person in Fiji. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.37.10 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 18 September 2009

Reply: I don't know if User: 202.170.37.10 is also User:Dbau13, but the above comment by the former is virtually identical to the comment the latter left on my talk page a few days ago. Consequently, I'll just repeat here some of what I said there:

It sounds like you're laboring under several misapprehensions, so I'll try to straighten them out:
YouTube is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.

The fact that someone or something can be found by searching on Google does not, by any means, imply that they should have a WP article. If you think it does, feel free to write an article on my cat.

The subject's own Web site and own company's Web site don't count as reliable sources either.

The statement that "this is a genuine article" isn't a reason that the article can't be deleted. Actually, even if it is "a genuine article" about a genuine person, it still doesn't mean the article can't be deleted.

Before you [comment on the AFD], though, I strongly recommend that you go read a few Wikipedia articles on deletion and notability, such as WP:Notability (people), WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Why was my page deleted?, WP:Introduction to deletion process, WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and WP:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates.

Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and submit article to Cleanup for a thorough sandblasting. The person recives some coverage in Fiji Times... which seems he may have a notability in Fiji... but if the article cannot be improved, it can go. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat stronger than weak delete. He seems to be a person of some importance in Fiji, but I can't bring myself to call it notable. He's cited as Chairman of ABC Foundation in one article, but also of the Rotary Club in another. ABC Foundation itself doesn't seem to bring up anything more than his name does in gnews, and "Bula Bollywood" in gnews brings up nothing. the June 2009 Fiji TV schedule suggests that Bula Bollywood may be less "hugely popular" than the wp article suggests, but I could be judging a book by its cover there. Looking at the material that's there, and failing to find any other information ("Ajay Amrit", "ABC Corporation" +fiji, and "Bula Bollywood" all brough up zero hits in Proquest, Gale, and Ebsco databases, even as passing mentions), I have to conclude that he hasn't done enough of the things necessary to pass Wikipedia:Notability_(people), and the things he has done are also not of sufficient worldwide importance to warrant inclusion. I have a regretful, axeman, feeling about it for some reason, but I don't think he warrants an article. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per sources which indicated notability. plus alot of information found.--Judo112 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - to make things more clear, I've just gone through the article and removed the citations that either didn't WP:RS (Amrit's own sites & YouTube, for example) and or didn't actually back up the statements in the article. All that's left is, well, a whole lot of uncited information and WP:OR. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:56, 25 September 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) 01:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Network Scale-up method[edit]

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

Was proposed for deletion as “non-notable neologism used by a single academic group”; I have no objection to the deletion – the article is extremely short – but the topic seems interesting enough that I would like to see what the community thinks before it is actually deleted. Bwrs (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Kinda tough to say, but ultimately I have to go with delete. Everything I've found is mostly related to this paper. Nothing that really indicates this is notable. Jujutacular^talk_contribs 02:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the list of papers linked in the article, here, show a bit of notability. I'm open to other editors' opinions of these. Jujutacular^talk_contribs 02:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine for a stub. Enough references can be made to get it to work. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete the prodder was correct. Interesting and notable are quite different things. It is not enough that something be interesting to be included in Wikipedia, the topic of the article must meet our standards of notability. This term appears to be a neologism and the method under any name has not achieved notability through sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. If & when this becomes notable it may be included in the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drawn Some - PROD made sense; WP:NEO Chzz ► 21:47, 18 September 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. This debate is now turning in circles while the consensus is pretty obvious. Time to stop this. Tone 21:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Örbom[edit]

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

This genealogical entry on a non-notable military officer violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT:

Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Drawn Some (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable is not a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If, by that, you mean "an essay suggests that saying only 'non-notable' might not be sufficient for deletion'", then I agree with you. Otherwise, your comment is misinformed at best and deliberately useless at worst. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep writing about my mom would be genealogy. A well referenced article is not genealogy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Non notable to you perhaps. Omegastar (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he is so non-notable, how come several swedish writers wrote about him? Further more he wasnt just a captain, he was a squadron chief. Wikipedia doesnt offer an article about squadron chiefs, but a search on google shows its commanding/officer rank. Omegastar (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Consensus is pretty clear, so in order not to drag on the process any longer ill support the concsensus. I do urge people to keep a NPOV on such matters. There are, for example, a significant amount of biographies about the american civil war that would fit the criteria for deletion easily. RAN: I would like to thank you for putting so much work into the article. I suggest you store it somewhere, because who knows? Maybe itll find a place here in the future. Omegastar (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable is the number-one valid reason for deletion. I applaud well-referenced articles, but I don't see the historical significance of Captain Orbom. He fought in the Battle of Poltava, but 60,000 other men did so as well. I'm willing to listen to an argument as to why someone considers him to be notable ("non notable to you perhaps" indicates that there's someone who will argue his case), but I don't even see that he was a footnote in world history. Mandsford (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment WP:BIO States that a article is notable if is it "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention" I would argue that someone born 1675 that have current reprinted references written about him, even if they are short, are both notable and did actually leave a footnote in history since we are actually discussing him here and now, more than 300 years later. If this person was a Lieutenant that survived the Battle of Poltava, was held prisoner for 13 years, returned home , it for sure is interesting or unusual in my mind. I linked this to deletesort WP:MILHIST, I hope they have people with experience about similar articles and can add some old consensus to the debate, I might be wrong :-). --Stefan ^talk 09:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This will be a delete, and it should be according to WP:BIO, but just think if this person was alive today, I think he would have passed WP:BIO easily with todays thousands of papers, magazines, the internet and all. It is very hard to pass WP:BIO for 300 year old people, there is a builtin BIAS against historical persons for meeting Notability, but maybe that is good, not sure. Nevermind lets delete and add some more pokemon characters :-) --Stefan ^talk 15:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —--Stefan ^talk 09:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is simply not enough significant coverage of this specific individual in sources to pass the general notability guidelines. Chzz ► 21:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in English language media means not notable enough for en.wiki. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out that rule in Wikipedia, I have never heard of it, or seen it invoked before ... it is also a Swedish Wikipedia article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed--not only is there is no such rule, it would be a direct contradiction of one of the basic principles of WP:RS and WP:N. Sources in any language will do , both to show notability and for information in an article. The English Wikipedia covers the entire world, and someone or something notable anywhere is notable here. The only significance of the word "English" is that the encyclopedia is written in English. Fortunately, we have people here who can work with sources in any language--probably to a greater extent than any of the other language WPs have. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that using non-English sources is 100% in line with WP:RS. (Though in situations where a fact could be sourced to both English and non-English sources, we should use the English one for the convenience of the reader, assuming the sources are otherwise equivalent.) But wether non-English sources can establish notability is a different matter, and it's a gray area at best. People like to cite WP:BIAS as though it were a policy or guideline, but in reality its not even an essay. It's a wikiproject.... At any rate it seems to me that as en.wiki serves an English speaking audience, we should be putting our effort into writing articles that are relevant to English speakers. If no one else is writing about at topic in English, we shouldn't be either. In other words: It's on Swedish wikipedia; that's great, people can find it there; there's nothing to be gained by having an English version here. I know there's no actual policy backing this assertion up, but there's no actual policy contradicting it either, so it's a gray area, and something we can disagree about in forums like these. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue for this article is a general lack of notability and historical relevance, not that the sources are written in a language you don't speak. There is no "gray area" here, only the suggestion that linguistic chauvinism would in any way be compatible with NPOV. Peter ^Isotalo 07:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's hard to assess the depth of the sources given that their titles haven't been translated from Swedish, but I see no reason to think that they're in-depth on the basis of the article's content, so WP:BIO isn't met Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They all seem like rather insignificant inclusions in non-general literature and sources. Most of them amount to little else but expanded army rosters. The preview of Ahnlund and Wichman hints at accounts of evangelical Christianity in Siberia, but this is still something that is generally applicable to the greater community of Swedish POVs in Russia. Most of the sources seem to merely repeat lot of the same basic facts, and I suspect that Lewenhaupt might be the source for most, if not all of them. There is basically zero secondary treatment of primary source material and no discussion of any historical significance. Peter ^Isotalo 07:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for that Peter. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are examples of individual participants of the Swedish campaigns in the Great Northern War that are notable. For example Jon Stålhammar is well-known by Swedish historians for his detailed accounts of his life and the letters to his wife, which have become important historical sources. I don't see anything remotely interesting in the life of this particular individual, though. He fought in battles, was captured after Poltava, came home, spawned children and died. There is nothing remarkable about this that sets him apart from countless other Swedish soldiers. Peter ^Isotalo 07:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article, references, or elsewhere suggests that this guy meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a major (or captain) who did nothing particularly out of the ordinary, thus fails WP:BIO. Buckshot06(prof) 10:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep per "non-notable" not being a convincing reason for deletion and as the subject seems to meet WP:BIO, i.e. a historical figure who is verifiable. Good job to Richard for his excellent efforts to reference! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of notability is a valid reason for deletion, and will remain a valid reason for deletion regardless of how many times you say it isn't. If wishes were fishes, you'd be a person who very strongly smelled of herring. ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NPA. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody, you should note that this is really not a routine NN vote-to-delete. I and others have valid reasons for saying that this person is inherently non-notable. And while it's nice to see that you care about saving articles, the personal essay you've linked to above seems to be asking for negative proof. The burden of proof always lies on those actually claiming notability, not those questioning it. I'm also rather impressed at the effort that Richard has spent on building up this article, but as a Swedish history student, I'm puzzled about the reasons. I can't see how the fate of a person like Örbom would amount to more than a statistic. His fate seems to be too similar to that of his fellow soldiers to be interesting as an individual. Peter ^Isotalo 07:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is well referenced, this person didn't do anything remarkable. It is very possible that the references are listing off all the officers of a given army (the title of the first reference . Karl XII's officerare: Biografiska anteckningar. certainly gives that appearance). Not every army officer is notable. My name found in a phone book, in the IBM directory, or even in my college yearbook, does not confer notability on me. Lacking some direct evidence that this officer is notable for something (more than just existing), delete as we are not a genealogy site. ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If he is verifiable and we can write an article on him, that is good enough. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not according to WP:N and WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then we can always WP:IAR, because an established editor in good faith is writing an article about a subject that is important to at least him. That counts more than ever changing and disputed bureaucracy. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nobody, why not argue the merits of the topic itself instead of engaging in all this sweeping criticism of general policy? Since Richard isn't keen on arguing why this subject is notable beyond its mere existence in Swedish official records, I would expect that anyone wanting to keep the article would at least attempt to get their bearings on the topic and actually produce something substantial that would save the article. Or at least some informed argument relating to the historical period itself. So far I get the impression that your activities here haven't extended beyond pure inclusionist-vs-deletionist politics. Peter ^Isotalo 19:34, 20 September 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optellios Inc.[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP notability standards, all sources are primary/press releases except for a tiny blurb in a local paper. Gigs (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info on notability here - http://www.laserfocusworld.com/display_article/156136/51/none/none/EDITO/No-mixed-signals - advancing new optical technologies besides commercial purpose only. Article could use more detail but should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.0.249 (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - that article isn't really about Optellios. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I can find press releases and press release rehashes. Only this reference in the article is what would be considered some actual coverage and it is very thin indeed. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak Keep, Their equipment/technology is used in hundreds of various facilities. While there is a lack of "original" press coverage, they are indeed a leader in their field. There is some info on them at business week...perhaps we could email them asking for original press coverage?Smallman12q (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a manufacturer of fiber optic perimeter security systems serving a limited clientele, unlikely to become a household name anytime soon. Their apparent government work might confer importance, but given their security work, it's unlikely to generate a lot of press coverage. Simply being a "leader in their field" is puffery; and the Business Week reference is a brief investment directory listing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have a very "elite" set of clientele. Their technology will be used in Qingzang railway, and is in use at NORAD. Clearly, they are a leader in their field, and while they do not have significant press coverage due to the nature of their work, they should be considered ineherently notable given their leading status in their field.Smallman12q (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is "How do we know they are leaders in their field?" Absent sourcing to establish this, then it is all conjecture. They sold something to NORAD. Do we have information about competitors? Do we know if a competitor has sold similar systems in much larger volumes? If we don't have this information, then we cannot establish that they are leaders in their field. And without independent sourcing, we don't know the significance of these sales. All we have a very short blurb from the online site for a group of Philadelphia area newspapers. -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And looking around to see who else is claiming to be a leader we have:

Fiber Sensys who are "the market leading provider of fiber-optic based intrusion detection solutions for both government and industry"
Network Integrity system who also have a bunch of sales to the U.S. military and government, and if they are to be believed were also funded by the US Army
Future Fibre Technologies who list the US Air Force, US Army, US Border Patrol, US Dept. of Homeland Security, US, Navy, and NATO as customers

So without independent reliable sources, I'm not convinced they are leaders in their field. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case...and the fact that I did a more extended google/academic search which also turned up nothing...perhaps when some contract fraud or something newsworthy comes out, then they will be considered worthy of having an article.Smallman12q (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, thus fails notability guidelines Chzz ► 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been unable to find reliable sources about this topic that would establish notability. The BusinessWeek link provided by Smallmanq does not establish notability since it is a listing in a directory. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 25 September 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. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Flores[edit]

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

This appears to be a relatively run-of-the-mill journalist; there don't seem to be many outside references to his work - the Editor and Publisher link in the article notwithstanding - and his work as a writer or as a musician doesn't appear to be of a level that would be considered notable in our notability guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. text such as "contact me at my email address" indicate blatant self promotion and violation of WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG Chzz ► 21:52, 18 September 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.